BIBLICAL   COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT, 

BT 

DR.   HERMANN   OLSHAUSEN, 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY   IN  THE/UNIVERSITY   OF   ERLANGEN.  <*~" 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN 

FOR    CLARK'S   FOREI&N    AND   THEOLOGICAL    LIBRARY. 

FIRST   AMERICAN   EDITION, 

REVISED  AFTER  THE  FOURTH  GERMAN  EDITION, 

BY 

A.    C.    KENDRICK,    D.D., 

PROFESSOR    OF    GREEK  IN  THE    U N I V E R S I T T  O  F  RO 0 H E 8 T E R.      ' 
TO  WHICH   IS  PREFIXED   OLSHAUSEN'S 

PROOF  OF  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
TRANSLATED  BY  DAVID  FOSDICK,    JE. 

VOL.    I. 


v   NEW  YORK: 
HELDON,  BLAKEMAN  &  CO., 

115    NASSAU   STREET. 
1857. 


7 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  ly 

SHELDON,   BLAKEMAN   &  CO., 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of 

New  York. 


8TEKKOTTPKD  BY  PBntntD  BY 

THOMAS    B.     SMITH.  PUDNEY    &    RUSSELL, 

82  &  84  Beekman-street,  N.  Y.  79  John-street 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


•Mi 
AMERICAN  EDITOR'S  PREFACE a. 

AUTHOR'S  PREFACE xv 

PREFACE  TO  THE  FOURTH  GERMAN  EDITION xix 

GENUINENESS  OP  THE  WRITINGS  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  . .  .  25-133 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  COMMENTARY 

§  1.  On  the  Origin  of  the  Gospel  Collection 135 

§  2.  On  the  Character  of  the  Gospel  Collection 137 

§  3.  On  the  Affinity  of  the  first  three  Gospels 189 

§  4.  On  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 141 

§6.  On  the  Gospel  of  Mark 145 

§  6.  On  the  Gospel  of  Luke 147 

§  7.  On  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospel  History 149 

§  8.  On  the  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History 153 

§  9.  Survey  of  the  Literature 158 


FIRST   PART. 

OF  THE  BIRTH  AND  CHILDHOOD  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 
MATTHEW  i  ii. ;  LUKE  i.  ii 


FIEST    SECTION. 
MATTHEW'S  ACCOUNT. — Chaps.  L  ii. 

1.  Genealogy  of  Jesus.     Matthew  L  1-17  ;  Luke  iii.  23-38 165 

2.  The  Birth  of  Jesus.    Matthew  i.  18-25 172 

3.  Visit  of  the  Magi — Flight  into  Egypt — Murder  of  the  Children — Arrival  at 

Galilee.    Matthew  ii.  1-23. ..  .  183 


V  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

SECOND  SECTION. 
LUKE'S  ACCOUNT. — Chaps.  L  iL 

PAOK 

§  1.  Proemium.    Luke  i.  1-4. 197 

§  2.  Annunciation  of  the  Birth  of  John  the  Baptist.    Luke  i.  5-25 203 

§  3.  Annunciation  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus — Mary's  Visit  to  Elisabeth.     Luke  i.  26-56  213 
§  4.  John's  Birth  and  Circumcision — Prophecies  of  Zacharias  concerning  him  and 

Christ.    Luke  i.  57-80 226 

§  5.  Birth,  Circumcision,  and  Presentation  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple.     Luke  iL  1-40     234 
§  6.  Jesus  Converses  with  the  Priests  in  the  Temple.    Luke  iL  44-52 251 


SECOND    PART. 

OP  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.— CHRIST'S  BAPTISM  AND  TEMPTATION. 
MATTHEW  iii.  1,  iv.  12  ;  MARK  i.  2-13 ;  LUKE  iii.  1,  iv.  13. 

§  1.  John's  Doctrine  and  Baptism.     Matthew  iii.  1-12  ;  Mark  i.  2-9;  Luke  iii.  1-20  255 
§  2.  The  Baptism  of  Christ.     Matthew  iii.  13-11 ;  Mark  i.  9-11 ;  Luke  iii.  21-23  ; 

Johni.  32-34 270 

§  3.  Christ's  Temptation.    Matthew  iv.  1-11 ;  Mark  i.  11,  12 ;  Luke  iv.  1-13 275 


THIRD    PART. 

OP  CHRIST'S  WORKS  AND  DISCOURSES,  PARTICULARLY  IN  GALILEE. 
MATTHEW  iv.  12,  xviii.  35 ;  COMPARED  WITH  MARK  i.  14,  ix.  50 ;  AND  LUKE  iv.  14,  ix.  50. 

§  1.  Jesus  appears  as  a  Teacher.  Matthew  iv.  12-lY ;  Mark  i.  14, 15 ;  Luke  iv.  14, 15  285 

§  2.  Jesus  chooses  Disciples.  Matthew  iv.  18-22  ;  Mark  i.  16-20 288 

§  8.  Christ's  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Matthew  iv.  23,  vii.  29 288 

§  4.  Healing  of  a  Leper.  Matthew  viii.  1-4;  Mark  i.  40-45 ;  Luke  v.  12-16 334 

§5.  Healing  of  the  Servant  of  a  Centurion.  Matthew  viii.  5-13 ;  Luke  vii.  1-10. ..  342 

§  6.  Raising  of  the  Young  Man  at  Nain.  Luke  vii.  11-17 347 

§  7.  Healing  of  Peter's  Mother-in-law.  Matthew  viii.  14-17  ;  Mark  L  29-34 ;  Luke 

iv.  31-41 350 

§  8.  Peter's  Draught  of  Fishes.  Luke  iv.  42-44;  Mark  i.  35-39 ;  Luke  v.  1-11... .  352 
§  9.  Jesus  stills  the  Sea.  Matthew  viii.  18-27  ;  Mark  iv.  35-41 ;  Luke  viii.  22-25.  358 
§  10.  Cure  of  the  Gadarene  Demoniac.  Matthew  viiL  28-34;  Mark  v.  1-20  ;  Luke 

viii.26-39..  359 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  V 

PAOB 

§  11.  Cure  of  a  Paralytic.     Matthew  ix.  1-8;  Mark  v.  21,  ii.  1-12;  Luke  v.  17-26.   373 
§  12.  The  Calling  of  St.  Matthew.— Of  Fasting.     Matthew  ix.  9-17  ;  Mark  ii.  13-22 ; 

Luke  v.  27-39 379 

§  13.  Healing  of  the  Woman  with  the  Issue  of  Blood — Raising  from  Death  the 

Daughter  of  Jairus.     Matthew  ix.  18-26;  Mark  v.  22-43;  Luke  viii.  40-45.  384 

§  14.  Healing  of  two  Blind  Men,  and  of  a  Dumb  Man.     Matthew  ix.  27-34 390 

§  15.  The  sending  forth  of  the  Apostles.     Matthew  ix.  35,  x.  42  ;  Mark  vi.  7-11  ; 

Luke  ix.  1-5 391 

§  16.  John  the  Baptist  sends  his  Disciples  to  Jesus.— Discourses  of  Jesus  on  the  oc- 
casion of  this  Mission.     Matthew  xi.  1-30;  Luke  vii.  18-35,  x.  13-15,  21,  22  415 
§  17.  The  Disciples  pluck  Ears  of  Corn.     Matthew  xii.  1-8  ;  Mark  ii.  23-28  ;  Luke 

vi.  1-15 437 

§  18.  Jesus  Cures  a  Withered  Hand.     Matthew  xii.  9-12  ;  Mark  iii.  1-6  ;  Luke  vi 

6-12 443 

§  19.  Of  the  Calumnies  of  the  Pharisees. — Jesus'  Severe  Rebukes  of  them.     Matthew 

xii.  22-45 ;  Mark  iii.  20-30  ;  Luke  xi.  14-26,  29-32 448 

§20.  The  Arrival  of  the  Mother  and  Brothers  of  Jesus.     Matthew  xii.  46-50  ;  Mark 

iii.  31-35  ;  Luke  viii.  19-21 470 

§  21.  A  Woman  Anoints  Jesus.    Luke  vii.  36,  viii.  3 473 

§  22.  The  Collection  of  Parables.    Matthew  xiii.  1-63 ;  Mark  iv.  1-20,  30-34 ;  Luke 

viii.,  4-15,  xiii.  18-21 .' 479 

§  23.  Jesus  in  Nazareth.     Matthew  viii.  53-58  ;  Mark  vi.  1-6  ;  Luke  iv.  14-30 503 

§  24.  The  Baptist's  Death.     Matthew  xiv.  1-12  ;  Mark  vi.  14-29  ;  Luke  iii.  19,  20, 

ix.  7-9 513 

§  25.  Feeding  of  Five  Thousand.     Matthew  xiv.  13-21 ;  Mark  vi.  30-44;  Luke  ix. 

10-17  ;  John  vi.  1-15 516 

§  26.  Jesus  Walks  on  the  Sea.     Matthew  ix.  22-36 ;  Mark  vi.  45-56 ;  John  vi.  16-21    521 

§  27.  Of  Washing  the  Hands.     Matthew  xv.  1-20  ;  Mark  vii.  1-23 526 

§  28.  The  Healing  of  the  Canaanitish  Woman's  Daughter.     Matthew  xv.  21-31 ; 

Mark  vii.  24-31 ;  [32-37,  viiL  22-26] 633 

§  29.  Feeding  of  the  Four  Thousand.     Matthew  xv.  32-39  ;  Mark  viii.  1-10 538 

§30.  Warning  against  the  Leaven  of  the  Pharisees.     Matthew  xvi.  1-12;  Mark 

iii.  11-21 641 

§  31.  Confession  of  the  Disciples. — Prophecy  of  Jesus  Respecting  his  own  Death. 

Matthew  xvi.  13-28 :  Mark  viii.  27,  ix.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  18-27 543 

§  32.  The  Transfiguration  of  Jesus.     Matthew  vii.  1-13  ;  Mark  ix.  2-13  ;  Luke  ix. 

28-36 555 

§  33.  Healing  of  the  Lunatic.     Matthew  xvii.  14-23  ;  Mark  ix.  14-32  ;  Luke  ix. 

37-45 564 

§  34.  The  Coin  (stater)  in  the  Fish's  Mouth.     Matthew  xvii.  24-27 570 

§  35.  On  the  Character  of  the  Children  of  the  Kingdom.     Matthew  xviii.  1-35 ;  Mark 

ix.  33-50;  Luke  ix.  46-56 574 


VI  TABLE  OP   CONTENTS. 


PART    IV. 

OF  CHRIST'S  LAST  JOURNEY  TO  JERUSALEM,  AND  CERTAIN  INCIDENTS 
WHICH  TOOK  PLACE  THERE. 

LUKE  ix.  51,  xxi.  38 ;  MATTHEW  xix.  1,  xxv.  46 ;  MARK  x.  1,  xiii.  87. 

PAGB 

§  1.  Report  of  the  Journey  by  St.  Luke.    Luke  ix.  51,  xviil  14 596 

§  2.  James  and  John  are  Incensed  against  the  Samaritans.    Luke  ix.  61-66 699 

§  3.  Of  Following  Jesus.     Luke  ix.  57-62 ;  Matthew  xiii  19-22 603 

§  4.  The  Sending  Forth  of  the  Seventy  Disciples,  with  the  Address  of  Jesus  to  them. 

Lukex.  1-24;   [Matthew  xi.  20-27] 606 

§  5.  Parable  of  the  Tender-hearted  Samaritan.    Luke  x.  25-37 613 

§  6.  Mary  and  Martha.    Luke  x.  38-42 617 

§  7.  Directions  Respecting  Prayer.    Luke  xi  1-13 620 


OKDEB  OF  THE  SECTIONS  OF  THE  GOSPELS  IN 
VOLUME  I. 

ARRANGED    AFTER    EACH    GOSPEL. 


ST.  MATTHEW. 


PAGE 

CHAPTERLiL   165 

"         iii         1-12 255 

"         iiL      13-17 270 

"         iv.         1-11 275 

"         iv.       12-17 285 

"          iv.       18-22 288 

"         iv.      23-vii,  29 288 

"         viiL       1-4 334 

"         viii  5-13..                 ,.  342 


viii     14-17. 
viii 


350 


18-27 358 

viiL     28-34 359 

ix.        1-8 373 

ix.        9-17 379 

ix.       18-26 384 

ix.      27-34 390 

ix.      35,  x.  42 391 

xL        1-30 415 

xii        1-8..,      437 


CHAPTER  xiL 

"  xii. 

"  xiil 

"  xiii 

"  xiii 

"  xiv. 

"  xiv. 

i '        "  xiv. 


9-21 443 

22-45 448 

46-50 470 

1-53 479 

53-58 503 

1-12 513 

13-21 516 

22-36 521 

xv.        1-20 526 

xv.      21-31 533 

xv.      32-39 538 

xvi      1-12 541 

xvi     13-28 543 

xvii      1-13 555 

xvii    14-23 564 

xvii.   24-27 570 

xviii     1-35 574 

viii     19-22 603 

ri      20-27 606 


ST.  MARK. 


CHAPTER  i 

1  

165 

'         i 

2-8  

255-271 

1         i. 

9-11  

270 

i 

12,  13  

275 

1         i. 

14,  15  

285-287 

'         i 

16-20  

284 

"         i 

29-34  

350 

i. 

35-39  

352 

ii         • 

40-15  

334 

"         ii 

1-12  

373 

"         iv. 

35-41  

358 

"            V. 

1-20  

359 

"            V. 

21  

373 

"        ii 

13-22  

379 

"            V. 

22-43  

384 

"        vi 

7-11  

391 

"         ii 

23-28  

437 

"         iii 

1-6  

443 

CHAPTER  iii    20-30 448 

"         iii   31-35 470 

"         iv.     1-20,  30-40 479 

vi     1-6 503 

"          vi    14-29 513 

"          vi    30-^4 516 

vi   45-56 521 

vii     1-23 526 

vii  24-31   533 

viii  22-26 533 

viii.    1-10 538 

viii  11-21 541 

viii.  27 543 

ix.      1 543 

ix.     2-13 555 

ix.    14-32 564 

ix.   33-50 574 


VU1 


ORDER  OF   THE   SECTIONS   OF   THE   GOSPELS. 


ST.  LUKE. 


PAGE 

CHAPTER!,  ii 197 

"          iii.      1-20 255 

"          iii.    21-23 270 

"          iii.    23-28 165 

"          iv.      1-13..  .  275 


iv.    14,  15. 


285 

iv.    31-41 350 

iv.    42-44 352 

V.        1-11 352 

v.     12-16 334 

v.     17-26 373 

vii.     1-10 342 

viii.  11-17 347 

viii.  22-25 358 

viii.  26-39 359 

v.      27-39 379 

viii.  40-55 384 

ix.      1-5 391 

vii.  18-35 415 

x.     13-15,  21,  22 415 

vi.      1-5 437 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  vi.      6-12 443 

"          xi.    14-26;  29-32 448 

"         viii.  19-21 470 

"          vii.  36;  viii.  3 473 

viii.    4-15 479 

xiii.  18-21 479 

iv.    14-30 503 

iii.     19,  20 513 

ix.      7-9 513 

ix.    10-17 516 

ix.    18-27 543 

ix.    28-36 555 

ix.    37-45 564 

ix.   46-56 574 

ix.    51;  xviii.  14 596 

ix.    51-56 599 

ix.    57-62 603 

x.       1-24 606 

x.     65-37 613 

x.     38-42 617 

xL     1-13 620 


PREFACE 

TO    THE    AMEKICAN    EDITION. 

THE  general  character  and  merits  of  Olshausen's  Commentary  on 
the  New  Testament  are  too  well  known  both  abroad  and  at  home  to 
need  being  set  forth  in  detail.  In  its  combination  of  exact  philo- 
logical learning,  careful  tracing  of  the  logical  connexion  and  full 
unfolding  of  the  thought,  and  hearty  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of 
the  sacred  writings,  it  stands  almost  alone,  having  nothing  fully 
corresponding  to  it  in  our  own  or  any  language.  This  union  of  rare 
and  high  excellences  makes  it -almost  equally  valuable  to  the  scholar, 
and  the  unlearned  but  intelligent  student  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
latter  finds  the  richest  veins  of  thought  opened,  and  Scripture  truth 
unfolded  in  its  depth  and  spirituality  ;  while  the  former  finds  the 
leading  critical  and  philological  points  discussed,  briefly  indeed,  but 
with  a  judgment  and  accuracy  which  furnish  the  best  guarantee  for 
the  soundness  of  the  rich  doctrinal  and  practical  teachings  that  are 
based  upon  them.  A  striking  feature  and  excellence  of  the  Com- 
mentary, is  its  clear  and  constant  recognition  of  the  organic  unity 
of  the  entire  Scriptures,  and  hence  its  constant  illustration  of  the 
New  Testament  from  the  Old.  Beyond,  perhaps,  the  majority  of 
commentators,  Olshausen  has  traced  the  gradual  unfolding  of  the 
divine  revelation  through  its  successive  stages.  He  sees  the  New 
Testament  rooted  in  the  Old,  the  Old  reaching  its  consummation  in 
the  New  ;  and  he  is  eminently  felicitous  in  employing  the  beautiful 
and  blended  lights  which  the  two  grand  divisions  of  the  sacred  vol- 
ume reciprocally  cast  upon  each  other. 

His  Commentary,  in  its  English  dress,  has  been  for  some  years 
before  the  public,  as  part  of  the  valuable  series  of  works  comprised 
in  Clark's  Foreign  and  Theological  Library.  It  has  been  received 
with  general  and  steadily-growing  favor.  The  present  publishers, 
therefore,  deemed  that  they  might  subserve  the  interests  both  of 


X  PREFACE   TO   THE   AMERICAN   EDITION. 

sacred  learning  and  practical  piety  in  making  it,  by  an  American 
edition,  more  accessible  to  the  American  public  :  and  this  the  more, 
as  the  enterprise  would  enable  them  to  add  materially  to  the  value 
of  the  English  work.  It  was  with  great  diffidence  that  the  editor 
undertook  the  supervision  of  the  work  ;  and  he  would  have  shrunk 
from  it  altogether  had  he  foreseen  the  amount  of  labor  which  its 
execution  would  involve.  It  will  be  proper  to  specify  briefly 
the  improvements  which  have  been  attempted  in  the  American 
edition. 

1.  Since  the  death  of  Olshausen,  a  new  and  thoroughly  revised 
edition  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  has  been  published  by 
Dr.  Ebrard,  his  pupil,  friend,  and  successor  in  the  theological  chair 
at  Erlangen.     The  general  character  of  Ebrard's  alterations  is  stated 
by  himself  in  the  accompanying  preface.     He  has  performed  his 
work  with  judgment  and  fidelity.     Without  modifying  the  general 
character  of  Olshausen's  work,  he  has  greatly  improved  it  by  correct- 
ing errors,  retrenching  superfluities,  striking  out  objectionable  pas- 
sages, and  adding  much  valuable  matter  by  way  of  illustration  or 
correction.     This  (fourth  German)  edition  has  been  adopted  as  the 
basis  of  the  present  edition,  and  been  scrupulously  followed  through- 
out.    The  public  has  thus  access  to  the  latest  and  much  improved 
German  edition  of  the  work. 

2.  Apart  from  these  modifications,  the  translation  itself  has  been 
subjected  to  a  careful  revision  by  a  close  and  constant  comparison 
with  the  original.     Of  the  English  work  the  editor  would  not  speak 
in  terms  of  unjust  disparagement.     It  evinces  fidelity  and  industry, 
and  is  in  parts  nearly  unexceptionable.     As  a  whole,  however,  it  is 
marred  by  serious  defects,  sometimes  mistaking,  sometimes  obscur- 
ing, and^  sometimes  even  directly  reversing  the  sense  of  the  original, 
and  elsewhere  injured  by  an  awkward  and  unidiomatic  style.     The 
editor,  therefore,  has  gone  through  the  work  sentence  by  sentence, 
correcting  errors,  clearing  up  obscurities,  pruning  redundancies,  and, 
so  far  as  might  be,  rendering  the  style  more  neat  and  idiomatic. 
He  is  aware  that  his  work  is  but  imperfectly  accomplished  ;  but  in 
regard  to  the  more  essential  qualities  of  a  version,  viz.,  accuracy 
and  clearness,  he  feels  assured  that  the  work  will  not  be  materially 
wanting.     The  nature  and  extent  of  his  alterations  will  perhaps  be 
best  illustrated  by  a  few  examples.    We  present  in  parallel  columns 
the  two  versions,  confining  our  selections  to  the  present  volume. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  AMERICAN   EDITION. 


EDINBURGH  EDITION. 

Vol.  I.  p.  4.  The  life  of  Jesus  presented 
such  a  fulness  of  the  most  varied  appear- 
'ances,  and  his  discourses  breathed  so  rich  a 
stream  of  life  upon  the  circle  of  his  disciples, 
that  single  individuals  were  incapable  of 
adequately  comprehending  the  exceeding 
grandeur  of  his  character.  In  Him  there 
was  revealed  something  that  surpassed  the 
power  of  single  human  individuals  to  ap- 
prehend. 

VoL  I.  p.  12.  As  in  the  Saviour,  the 
Aoyof  was  manifested  in  a  aupa,  so  in  a 
comprehensive  delineation  of  the  life  of  Je- 
sus, the  popular  and  temporal  element  in  his 
manifestation  must  appear  vividly  associated 
with  the  apprehension  of  its  spiritual  import. 


AMERICAN  EDITION. 

Page  137.  The  life  of  Jesus  presented 
itself  in  so  manifold  a  variety  of  aspects ;  his 
discourses  poured  upon  his  disciples  so  rich 
a  stream  of  life,  that  any  single  individual 
was  utterly  incapable  of  apprehending  the 
overwhelming  fulness  of  his  character.  In 
frim  were  disclosed  elements  which  no  single 
set  of  human  faculties  was  adequate  to 
grasp. 


Page  144.  As  in  the  Saviour,  the  Aoyof, 
Word,  was  manifested  in  a  aupa,  body,  so,  in 
a  comprehensive  delineation  of  his  life,  along 
with  the  spiritual,  the  national  and  temporal 
elements  of  his  character  required  to  be  liv- 
ingly  set  forth. 


Vol.  II.  Matt.  xiv.  13,  p.  163,  note.  De 
Wette  thinks  that  Luke  places  this  feeding 
in  a  different  locality  from  Matthew  and 
Mark;  he  knows  nothing  of  a  passage  across 
the  sea,  and  conceives  Bethsaida  to  have 
been  on  the  western  shore. 


Page  576,  note.  De  "Wette  thinks  that 
Luke  places  this  feeding  in  a  different  local- 
ity from  Matthew  and  Mark ;  that  he  knows 
nothing  of  a  passage  across  the  sea,  and  re- 
fers to  the  Bethsaida  on  the  western  shore 


VoL  H.  Matt.  xii.  37,  p  101.  But  the 
more  that  the  word  has  reference  to  spiritual 
things,  the  more  punishable  becomes  the 
abuse  of  it :  yea,  it  is  even  the  word,  as  the 
manifestation  of  what  is  in  man,  in  which 
the  whole  nature  of  man  is  revealed. 


Page  465.  And  the  deeper  the  signifi- 
cance of  speech,  the  more  culpable  its  abuse; 
nay,  in  speech,  as  the  expression  of  the  soul, 
is  man's  entire  character  revealed. 


VoL  II.  Matt.  xiv.  22,  p.  169.    For  it  is        Page  521.    For  we  have  here  not  so 
not  so  much  an  interposed  influence  brought  much  an  influence  brought  to  bear  on  na- 
to  bear  on  nature,  that  is  here  spoken  of  (viz.  ture,  as  a  personal  withdrawal  from  the  con- 
in  Christ's  walking  on  the  sea) — the  special  trol  of  earthly  natural  laws,  here,  viz.,  that  of 
difficulty  hi  this  case  consists  hi  his  with-  gravity, 
drawing  himself  personally  from  the  control 
of  earthly  natural  laws. 


Vol.  n.  Mark  xv.  7,  p.  178.  In  the  next 
place,  the  KOI  ov  introduces  the  supplement- 
ary remark — "and  if  any  one  says,  Your 
property  is  consecrated  to  the  temple,  it  is 
then  unnecessary  for  him  to  honour  his  father 
and  his  mother." 


Page  528.  In  the  next  place,  the  KC&  ab 
introduces  the  answering  clause  (the  apodosis 
of  the  proposition): — "  if  any  one  says,  What 
would  have  been  yours  is  consecrated  to  thu 
temple,  he  need  not  (ov  [1%,  he  shall  not)  hon- 
our father  and  mother." 


Xll 


PREFACE    TO    THE    AMERICAN    EDITION. 


EDINBURGH  EDITION. 

Vol.  II.  p.  194  Then  although  typy  is 
immediately  explained  at  Matt.  xvi.  12,  as 
6t.6axr/,  yet  this  is  not  to  be  looked  on  apart 
from  the  whole  circumstances  amidst  which 
it  stands  ;  for,  outwardly  considered,  there 
was  much  truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Phar- 
isees. 


AMERICAN  EDITION. 

Page  542.  Since  although  ^vftTi,  leaven,  ia 
immediately  explained  at  Matt.  xvi.  12,  as 
dfdap?,  doctrine,  yet  this  is  not  to  be  re- 
garded separately  from  their  entire  moral 
condition ;  for,  outwardly  considered,  there 
was  much  truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Phar- 
isees. 


Vol.  II.  p.  201.  The  representation  thus 
given  exhibits  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly 
as  united  in  the  church.  Inasmuch  as  heav- 
enly powers  are  acting  within  the  church, 
it  is  not  dissevered  by  its  perfected  organs 
from  the  heavenly,  rather  has  it  its  sanction 
in  the  heavenly. 

Vol.  H.  p.  209,  Matt.  xvii.  1.  At  the 
outset  we  summarily  reject  those  views 
•which  reduce  the  fact  itself  to  a  dream,  or 
an  optical  delusion,  and  we  deal  in  the  same 
way  with  the  views  as  to  thunder  and  light- 
ning and  passing  mists  which  some  would 
substitute  for  the  voice  of  God,  and  the  light- 
cloud. 


Page  548.  This  representation  exhibits 
an  earthly  and  heavenly  character  and 
functions  as  united  in  the  church.  Con- 
trolled by  heavenly  powers,  the  acts  of  its 
earthly  agents  bear  not  merely  human  im- 
press and  authority,  but  have  their  sanction 
in  heaven. 

Page  555.  At  the  outset,  we  summarily 
reject  those  views  which  reduce  the  fact  it- 
self to  a  dream  or  an  optical  delusion ;  views 
in  which  thunder,  lightning,  and  passing 
mists  take  the  place  of  the  voice  of  God  and 
the  cloud  of  light. 


VoL  II.  p.  236,ch.  xviii.  5.     The  simplest  Page  577.     The  simplest  explanation  is, 

explanation  is  that  this  description  of  it  is  that  this  form  of  description  is  occasioned  by 

occasioned  by  the  preceding  admonition  (set  the  preceding  mention  (made  distinctly  by 

forth  clearly  by  Matt.)  to  enter  into  the  king-  Matt.)   of  entering    into  the   kingdom    of 

dom  of  God.  God. 

Vol.  HI.  p.  3,  Luke  xii.  50.  He  coun-  He  counsels  therefore  that  they  should  in 
gels  therefore  that  they  should  without  delay  season  become  reconciled  to  their  adver- 
unite  with  their  enemies.  sary. 

These  specimens  have  been  taken  almost  at  random,  and  they 
might  be  multiplied  by  hundreds,  and  in  minor  matters  by  thou- 
sands, even  within  the  compass  of  the  first  two  volumes.  They 
will  show  the  imperative  need  of  a  careful  revision  of  the  work. 

3.  It  was  the  wish  of  the  publishers  to  make  the  work  more 
widely  useful  by  a  translation  into  English  of  the  numerous  Greek 
words  and  phrases  scattered  through  the  text.  The  Commentary 
of  Olshausen  is  based  on  the  original  ;  its  citations  are  made  almost 
invariably  from  the  original ;  and  its  criticisms  and  explanations  are 
of  course  founded  immediately  upon  the  Greek  text.  The  work  is 


PREFACE   TO   THE   AMERICAN   EDITION.  Xlll 

thus  designed  primarily  and  almost  exclusively  for  scholars.  This  its 
scholastic  character  the  editor  has  felt  it  his  duty  fully  to  retain, 
and  to  make  all  his  modifications  in  subserviency  to  this.  He  has, 
therefore,  while  translating  the  Greek  words  and  phrases  occurring 
in  the  text,  retained  the  original,  except  in  cases  where  it  had  been 
already  once  or  twice  given,  or  where  nothing  whatever  was  depend- 
ent on  its  retention.  He  has  then  (as,  for  example,  where  rrioTig, 
dtKaioovvr],  6  vibi;  ~ov  -deov,  etc.,  occurred  with  no  peculiarity  of 
meaning,  and  merely  interrupting  the  flow  of  the  English  sentence) 
silently  replaced  them  by  their  English  equivalents.  This  process 
might,  perhaps,  have  been  advantageously  carried  much  farther,  but 
the  editor  preferred  erring  in  this  respect  rather  in  deficiency  than 
in  excess.  In  the  purely  philological  and  critical  remarks,  which 
have  value  only  for  scholars,  he  has  of  course  rarely  added  the 
translations.  In  his  renderings  he  has  generally  adhered  to  the 
language  of  the  common  version.  When  this  was  inconvenient,  he 
has  unhesitatingly  deviated  from  it. 

4.  The  editor  hardly  ventures  to  add  as  another  advantage  of 
this  edition  the  brief  notes  which  he  has  himself  here  and  there  in- 
terspersed through  the  volume.  Annotating  the  Commentary 
formed  no  part  of  his  original  purpose.  But  in  proceeding  he  could 
scarcely  resist  the  impulse  here  and  there  to  express  his  dissent  from 
the  particular  expositions  of  Olshausen,  and  especially  in  what  he 
deems  some  serious  errors  of  doctrine  he  has  felt  bound  to  do  so. 
With  a  general  soundness  of  judgment,  and  a  warm  sympathy  with 
evangelical  truth,  Olshausen  is  yet  not  free  from  the  characteristic 
faults  of  his  countrymen.  He  speculates  sometimes  with  a  subtlety 
and  sometimes  with  a  mysticism  characteristically  German,  and 
sometimes  bends  philology  to  the  support  of  the  favourite  here- 
sies of  the  German  theologians.  The  editor  has,  therefore,  both  in 
minor  and  more  important  matters,  occasionally  added  a  note 
(signed  K.)  expressing  his  dissent.  This  he  has  generally  done 
with  the  utmost  brevity,  choosing  rather  to  suggest  than  elabo- 
rately argue  the  grounds  of  his  opinion.  The  desire  of  brevity  must 
be  his  apology  for  the  dogmatical  air  which  may  occasionally  char- 
acterize the  notes.  Of  course  it  will  not  be  understood  that  he  has 
commented  on  all  from  which  he  dissented.  He  has  introduced  no 
modifications  into  the  text,  except  that  in  two  or  three  instances 
he  has  silently  corrected  an  error  in  lexicography. 


XIV  PREFACE   TO   THE   AMERICAN   EDITION. 

With  these  remarks  the  editor  submits  the  present  volume  to  the 
public.  The  remaining  volumes  will  follow,  it  is  hoped,  at  no  long 
intervals.  If  they  shall  subserve  the  interests  of  evangelical  truth, 
the  deep  love  of  which  has  evidently  inspired  their  author,  the  highest 
aim  of  the  editor  and  the  publishers  will  have  been  attained. 

A.  C.  KENDRICK. 

BOOHESTEB,  August,  1856. 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE, 


THE  plan  and  arrangement  of  this  work,  notwithstanding  many 
alterations  and  additions  in  the  details,  remain  essentially  the  same 
in  this  new  edition  of  the  Commentary,  since  I  think  I  may  take 
it  for  granted  that,  in  these  points,  I  have  met  the  wants  of  our 
times.  I  regard  it  as  my  chief  object  to  bring  out  the  inward 
unity  of  the  whole  New  Testament,  and  of  the  Scriptures  gene- 
rally, and,  by  the  interpretation,  to  introduce  the  reader  to  the 
unity  of  life  and  spirit  in  the  Sacred  Books.  To  have  been  con- 
tinually noticing  interpretations  which  originate  in  entirely  remote 
views,  as  well  as  to  have  been  constantly  opposing  unchristian 
tendencies,  would  have  rendered  it  impossible  to  enter  into  the 
spirit  of  the  Bible,  since  in  that  way  the  flow  of  the  spirit  would 
necessarily  have  been  interrupted.  Exegetical  lectures  have  to 
supply  what  is  necessary  in  reference  to  the  enumeration  of  differ- 
ent interpretations,  to  the  refutation  of  errors,  to  grammar,  archae- 
ology, and  history. 

Hence  it  naturally  follows,  that,  in  this  third  edition,  such 
lately  published  works  as  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus,  and  De  Wette's 
Commentary  (who  professes  to  agree  with  Strauss  in  the  principles, 
but  would  prefer  a  less  extensive  application  of  them,  which  is, 
indeed,  evidently  inconsistent,  as  Strauss  has  very  justly  demon- 
strated in  reply  to  him,  see  "Berliner  Jahrbucher,'"  1837,  No.  1,  ff.), 
could  not  be  noticed  by  me,  so  far  as  there  is  a  difference  of  prin- 
ciples between  their  authors  and  myself.  In  those  passages  where 
that  difference  was  not  involved,  I  have  not  omitted  to  notice  these 
works  also,  but  have  used  them  as  well  as  treatises  more  congenial 
to  my  own  mind,  among  which  I  mention  particularly  Tholuck's 
masterly  exposition  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  order  by  strict 


xvi  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

impartiality  to  gather  with  ever-increasing  purity  the  sense  of  the 
Word  of  God.  Still  it  was  very  rarely  that  I  gained  any  light  from 
the  works  of  Strauss  and  De  Wette,  even  as  to  the  externals  of 
Scripture  ;  while  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  Tholuck's  labours  in 
every  respect. 

Still,  as  the  notorious  work  of  Strauss  contains  a  continued 
series  of  attacks  on  my  Commentary,  I  avail  myself  of  this  oppor- 
tunity to  explain  my  silence  with  reference  to  these  attacks. 

At  first,  I  determined  to  write  a  special  work  on  the  subject ;  but 
the  composition  of  it  was  prevented  by  protracted  illness.  Mean- 
while, such  a  flood  of  refutations  is  being  poured  forth,  that  I  can- 
not even  begin  to  write  down  my  thoughts,  because  every  moment 
brings  some  book  or  pamphlet,  which  has  already  discussed  first 
this  point  and  then  the  other  on  which  I  intended  to  enlarge.  On 
the  other  hand,  not  a  single  work  appeared  in  favour  of  Strauss  ;  and 
even  in  the  few  criticisms  that  were  somewhat  favourable,  nothing 
new  whatever  was  brought  forward  in  confirmation  of  his  view. 
All  parties  in  the  theological  world  are  unanimous  in  the  rejection 
of  his  work.  This  being  the  state  of  affairs,  the  danger  to  theology 
from  Strauss'  work  may,  we  hope,  be  regarded  as  removed  ;  among 
the  laity,  indeed,  it  will  do  the  more  mischief.  Of  course  science  is 
not  to  expect  thus  to  be  freed  from  the  conflict ;  for  even  though 
the  inapplicability  of  the  mythical  interpretation  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  evidently  demonstrated,  yet  heroes  will  soon  arise  to 
call  our  courageous  and  unprejudiced  Strauss  a  cowardly  poltroon, 
full  of  superstitious  assumptions,  because  instead  of  venturing  to 
speak  out  plainly,  he  only  now  and  then  gently  hints  that  Chris- 
tianity and  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  to  him  simply  the 
product  of  unbounded  fanaticism,  or,  to  speak  more  decidedly,  of  a 
monstrous  deception.  As  Dr.  Paulus  at  first  propounded  his  natu- 
ral explanation  of  the  miracles  amid  loud  rejoicing,  and  now  sees  it 
turned  to  ridicule  by  Strauss,  who  stands  upon  his  shoulders,  a 
similar  result  awaits  the  latter,  with  his  mythical  explanation. 
And  unless  we  are  greatly  mistaken  in  reading  the  signs  of  the 
times,  Strauss  will  not  need,  like  his  predecessor,  to  live  to  be  eighty 
years  old,  in  order  to  hear  with  his  own  ears  the  derision  of  his  more 
decided  disciples.  The  history  of  the  world  advances  with  accele- 
rated pace.  The  infant  Antichrist  struggles  powerfully  in  the 
bosom  of  society,  and  hastens  to  its  birth.  May  but  the  Church  of 
Christ  attain  more  and  more  to  a  knowledge  of  itself,  so  as  to  be 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE.  xvii 

able  to  separate  itself  from  all  antichristian  elements ;  and  may 
Christian  science  vigorously  guard  itself  against  the  dangerous 
error  of  supposing  that  such  excrescences  of  unbelief,  as  the  hy- 
pothesis of  the  mythical  character  of  the  New  Testament,  necessarily 
belong  to  its  course  of  development  !  Such  phenomena,  theology 
ought  to  treat  purely  apologetically — i.  e.,  in  that  department 
which  defends  the  domain  of  Christian  science  against  attacks  from 
without ;  in  its  inward  sanctuary  such  formations  have  no  place 
whatever. 

In  an  apologetic  point  of  view,  I  still  intend  to  contribute  some- 
thing towards  a  refutation  of  the  mythical  system,  inasmuch  as  I 
propose  to  myself  a  renewed  comprehensive  investigation  on  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  to  which  Dr.  Theile  of  Leipsic  has 
kindly  invited  me  in  his  work  recently  published  against  Strauss. 
If  it  be  proved  that  our  canonical  Gospels  are  the  productions  of 
eye-witnesses  of  the  facts,  the  applicability  of  the  mythical  inter- 
pretation of  the  life  of  Jesus  vanishes  most  certainly  and  completely, 
according  to  Strauss'  own  confession.  If  God  grant  life  and  health, 
I  shall  proceed  to  this  recasting  of  my  earlier  work  on  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels,  immediately  after  the  completion  of  the  printing 

of  the  third  edition  of  the  second  volume. 

«&$««ooo 

VOL.  I.— 2 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FOUETH  GERMAN  EDITION. 

IT  was  not  without  a  degree  of  apprehension  that  I  acceded  to 
the  request  of  the  respected  publisher,  to  subject  to  a  revision  the 
.  sainted  Olshausen's  Commentary  on  the  Gospels.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  Commentaries  of  Olshausen  bear  an  impress  of  such  marked 
peculiarity  that  the  disturbing  presence  of  a  foreign  hand  would  be 
immediately  recognized ;  on  the  other,  I  was  aware  that  I  differed 
so  widely  from  my  lamented  teacher,  not  only  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  many  individual  passages,  but  even  in  some  more  funda- 
mental views,  that  it  seemed  to  me  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
steer  between  the  opposite  extremes  of  depriving  the  public  of 
Olshausen's  expositions,  and  of  proving  false  to  my  own  convic- 
tions. Finally,  veneration  for  my  ever  to  be  remembered  teacher 
interposed  additional  obstacles  to  any  thing  that  looked  like  cor- 
rection. And  still  I  could  not  conceal  from  myself  that  sacred 
learning  had  within  the  last  fifteen  years  made  such  advancement, 
that  this  Commentary,  if  it  was  to  perpetuate  and  extend  its  bene- 
ficent influence,  stood  assuredly  in  need  of  revision.  I  determined, 
therefore,  upon  the  work,  and  proceed  now  to  state  to  the  reader 
the  mode  of  procedure  by  which  the  proposed  end  might  be  most 
nearly  approximated. 

I  have  frequently  substituted  the  more  for  the  less  precise  expres- 
sion. (Comp.  e.  g.  at  Matt.  ii.  23.  Olshausen  thus :  "  the  Evangelist 
has  reference  to  that  use  of  language  which  employed  Nazarene  in 
the  sense  of  despised."  I  thus  :  "  the  Evangelist  has  reference  to  the 
fact  that  the  Nazarenes  were  despised  by  the  nation.")  Manifest  in- 
accuracies (e.  g.  in  the  same  place  the  derivation  of  the  name  No^opet 
from  132)  have  been  corrected.  Polemical  remarks  which  have  no 
importance  for  the  present  time,  have  been  erased  ;  and  on  the 
contrary,  here  and  there  more  recent  literary  notices  have  been 


XX         PREFACE  TO  THE  FOURTH  GERMAN  EDITION". 

appended  (as  at  Matt.  ii.  21,  on  the  death  of  Herod).  I  have  some- 
times abridged  widely  extended  discussions,  removed  repetitions, 
and  in  like  manner  thrown  out  occasional  allusions  to  peculiar 
views  of  Olshausen  (as  e.  g.  on  the  trichotomy),  which  had  been 
fully  discussed  elsewhere. 

The  corrections  thus  far  mentioned  are  manifestly  of  a  nature 
which  involves  no  change  in  the  coloring  and  spirit  of  the  Commen- 
tary. But  where  I  have  dissented  from  Olshausen's  view  in  more 
important  points,  I  have  allowed  his  explanations  to  stand,  and 
subjoined  my  own  with  the  utmost  possible  brevity  in  notes  signed 
E.  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  or  incorporated  them  into  the  text  en- 
closed in  brackets,  [  ] ;  here  and  there  also  I  have  added  in  the  latter 
way  mere  explanations  and  expansions  of  the  thought  (as  at  Matt, 
vii.  15).  It  will  of  course  be  understood  that  I  could  not  always, 
but  only  on  more  important  questions,  append  my  dissenting  view, 
and  hence  I  hold  myself  answerable  only  for  that  which  I  have 
thus  actually  added  either  in  the  foot-notes,  or  the  bracketed 
remarks. 

In  the  order  of  events  I  differ,  as  is  well  known,  widely  from 
Olshausen.  I  have  allowed  his  remarks,  with  their  proofs,  to  stand 
unchanged,  and  in  appropriate  places  have  merely  made  a  reference 
to  my  Kritik  der  Evang.  Geschichte,  removing  only  repetitions  ;  as 
e.  g.  where  Olshausen  after  once,  at  Luke  ix.  51,  having  developed 
his  view  in  relation  to  the  narrative  of  Christ's  journey  to  Jerusalem 
(Keisebericht),  then  at  the  beginning  of  every  new  section  repeats 
the  statement  that  this  belongs  to  that  narrative. 

By  many  illustrative  additions  (e.  g.  at  the  parable  of  the  field 
with  its  diversities  of  soil,  of  the  unjust  steward,  etc.),  I  trust  that  I 
have  added  to  the  value  of  the  book,  and  rendered  to  its  readers  a 
real  service. 

May  this  Commentary  in  its  present  form  continue  to  impart 
the  same  rich  blessings  which  it  has  hitherto  dispensed. 

DR.  EBRARD. 

ERLANGEN,  Sept.  1,  1853. 


PROOF  OF  THE  GENUINENESS 

OF   THE 

WRITINGS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

FOB 

INTELLIGENT  READERS  OF  ALL   CLASSES. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN  OF 

DR.  HERMANN  OLSHAUSKN, 

PBOFE68OB  OK  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  UNIVKE3ITY  OF  EBLANGEJT. 


WITH  NOTES, 

BY   DAVID    FOSDICK,   JB. 


CONTENTS. 


MM 

PREFACE  BY  THE  TRANSLATOR  ..........................................       xxv 

AUTHOR'S  PREFACE  ..........................  .  .........................    zxviii 

iHTRODUCTIOir  ......................................................... 


CHAPTER  L 
Of  the  New  Testament  in  General 


CHAPTER  H. 
Of  the  Collection  of  the  Gospels.  .........................................         xlii 

CHAPTER  m. 
Of  the  Gospels  individually,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ....................     xlviii 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Of  the  Pauline  Epistles  .................................................       Iviii 

CHAPTER  V. 
Continuation.    Of  the  Pauline  Epistles  Composed  during  and  after  Paul's  impris- 

onment at  Roma  ................................................      Izzii 

CHAPTER  VI 
Of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ...........................................  Jzzzii 

CHAPTER  VIL 
Of  the  Catholic  Epistles 


CHAPTER  VHL 
Of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  ..........................................       xcri 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Of  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude  .......................................         cri 

CHAPTER  X. 
Of  the  Revelation  of  John.  .............................................. 

Conclusion  ..............................  ..... 


PREFACE   BY  THE   TRANSLATOR. 


THE  author  of  the  following  treatise  is  known  to  those  convers- 
ant with  the  theological  literature  of  Germany,  as  a  writer  of  con- 
siderable celebrity.  He  was  born  in  1796  at  Oldeslohe  in  the 
Duchy  of  Holstein.  He  received  his  University  education  partly  at 
Kiel  and  partly  at  Berlin.  In  1822  he  became  theological  professor 
at  Konigsberg,  in  the  remotest  north-eastern  part  of  the  Prussian 
dominions,  where  he  remained  till,  in  1835,  he  was  called  to  occupy 
the  same  chair  at  Erlangen  in  Bavaria.  His  fame  has  been  derived 
mostly  from  his  Commentaries,  as  being  his  most  extensive  produc- 
tions. They  are  characterized  by  an  almost  utter  absence  of  philo- 
logical display,  although  they  are  far  from  being  deficient  in  learn- 
ing and  shrewdness.  The  author  prefers  to  exhibit  results  rather 
than  the  processes  by  which  they  were  attained.  His  mode  of  ex- 
position is  altogether  more  suited  to  common  minds  than  the  eru- 
dite, cumbrous  mode  pursued  by  most  German  commentators.  To 
use  the  language  of  Professor  Stuart,  "  the  course  of  thought,  and 
things  rather  than  words,  are  his  chief  objects." 

The  little  work  herewith  given  to  the  public  in  an  English  dress 
(published  in  German  in  1832),  is  an  attempt  to  present  concisely 
and  simply  the  present  state  of  investigation  concerning  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  New  Testament.  I  do  not  know  of  a  book  upon  the 
subject,  in  any  language,  which  combines  so  popular  a  cast  with  so 
much  comprehensiveness  and  justness  of  representation  as  are,  in 
my  opinion,  manifested  in  this.  The  unlearned  but  inquisitive 
Christian  may  here  find  sources  of  reflection  and  conviction  respect- 
ing the  truth  of  the  record  on  which  he  relies,  that  are  not  com^ 
monly  accessible  without  the  toil  of  severe  study. 

There  will  of  course  be  found  in  the  work  a  tone  somewhat  alien 
from  our  English  views  and  feelings.  Reference  is  had  to  religious 
circumstances  differing  in  some  important  respects  from  our  own. 
This  peculiarity  of  tone,  however,  does  not,  in  my  opinion,  involve 


XXVI  PREFACE  BY  THE  TRANSLATOR. 

anything  of  a  clearly  mischievous  tendency.  Its  influence  will, 
I  think,  be  useful.  It  is  well  to  enlarge  our  minds  through  an 
acquaintance  with  the  sentiments  entertained  concerning  religious 
things  by  men  as  fully  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  piety  as  ourselves, 
who  have  been  nurtured  in  circumstances  quite  different  from  those 
by  which  we  have  been  affected.  By  comparison  and  inference,  in 
such  a  case,  we  may  be  much  benefitted. 

I  would  not  be  understood  as  assenting,  without  restriction,  to  all 
the  views  which  this  little  work  presents.  They  may  be  right,  or 
they  may  be  wrong.  I  feel  content  to  launch  them  before  the 
public,  knowing  that  if  right  they  will  swim,  and  if  wrong  they  will 
eventually  sink.  Of  this,  however,  I  am  fully  convinced  (as  may  be 
judged  from  the  present  version)  that  the  book  is  in  the  main  a 
good  one  ;  and  I  believe  the  public  will  endorse  my  opinion. 

In  proceeding  with  the  business  of  translation,  I  have  been 
guided  by  the  sense  rather  than  the  letter.  The  grammatical  con- 
struction of  the  original  has  been  altered  whenever  it  was  thought 
advisable  to  alter  it  for  the  sake  of  rendering  the  sense  more  per- 
spicuous and  natural  in  English.  I  have  in  one  or  two  instances 
ventured  to  qualify  an  expression  which  seemed  to  me  too  strong, 
but  never  in  any  case  where  the  change  was  of  much  importance. 
For  instance,  I  have  altered  inconceivable  to  hardly  conceivable, 
etc.  I  have  also,  in  a  few  cases,  given  biblical  references  in  addi- 
tion to  those  furnished  by  the  author.  Many  of  the  figures  in  the 
original  references  were  (typographically  or  otherwise)  erroneous, 
and  have  been  corrected.  Biblical  quotations  are  presented  in  con- 
formity with  our  received  English  version,  instead  of  being  trans- 
lated from  the  German. 

The  notes  which  I  have  subjoined  are  all  designated  by  the 
letters  TB. 

,  D.  F.JB. 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE. 


SEVEN  years  ago,  when  I  published  my  history  of  the  Gospels, 
it  was  my  earnest  desire  to  show  the  genuineness  of  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  in  a  small  work,  designed  for  intelligent 
readers  generally.  But,  urgent  as  the  necessity  of  such  a  work  ap- 
peared to  me  even  then,  the  execution  of  my  plan  has  been  post- 
poned to  the  present  time  ;  partly  because  I  w%s  hindered  from  en- 
tering upon  it  by  multiplied  avocations,  and  partly  because  I  hoped 
some  one  would  present  himself  who  was  more  capable  of  such  an 
undertaking  than  I  felt  myself  to  be.  For  I  knew  but  too  well  how 
difficult  it  would  be  for  me  to  write  simply  and  plainly,  so  as  to 
become  even  intelligible  to  those  who  are  not  conversant  with  in- 
vestigations of  such  a  description  as  must  be  noticed  in  this  work. 
As,  however,  no  one  has  yet  appeared  to  present  such  a  work  to  the 
Church  of  Christ,  and  the  necessity  of  it  has  meanwhile  much  in- 
creased, nothing  remained  for  me  but  to  surmount  my  scruples,  and 
execute  the  work  as  well  as  the  Lord  might  permit. 

The  necessity  of  such  a  work  will  have  been  evident  to  every  one 
who  has  observed  how  certain  positions  as  to  the  pretended  spuri- 
ousness,  or  at  least  suspicious  character,  of  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  (positions  which  were  formerly  current  only  within  the 
circle  of  the  clergy),  are  now  entertained  among  the  common  laity. 
It  is  easy  to  imagine  the  injury  which  is  effected  by  such  foolish 
opinions.  To  the  audacious  opponents  of  Divine  truth  they  afford 
a  fine  occasion  for  repelling  every  attempt  to  win  their  assent  to  it ; 
and  well-meaning  persons  often  find  in  them  occasion  of  doubts  and 
anxiety,  which  they  might  be  spared,  did  they  only  at  least  receive 
the  antidote  at  the  same  time  with  the  poison.  Such  an  antidote, 
to  obviate,  or  at  least  lessen,  the  destructive  consequences  of  the 
views  of  many  theologians  in  regard  to  the  biblical  books  (views 
which  are  diffused  abroad  sometimes  indiscreetly,  and  sometimes 
with  a  bad  intention),  I  wish  this  little  work  to  be  considered. 


xxviii  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

It  will,  at  the  same  time,  be  my  endeavour  to  correct  the  views 
of  many  not  very  clear-sighted,  though  well-meaning,  persons,  who 
appear  to  think  that  all  critical  investigations  of  the  genuineness  or 
spuriousness  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  are,  as  such,  wrong,  and  take 
their  origin  from  unbelief.  This  idea  is  fundamentally  erroneous, 
and  not  seldom  arises  from  a  religious  conceit,  to  which  there  is  a 
special  liability  on  the  part  of  persons  who,  conscious  of  their  own 
internal  religious  life,  dispense  with  all  enlarged  views  of  the  con- 
nection of  theology  with  the  whole  church  of  God  on  earth,  and 
nevertheless  are  tempted  to  judge  of  things  beyond  the  pale  of  their 
capacity.  It  would  have  been  better,  therefore,  had  all  such  inves- 
tigations been  confined  within  the  circle  of  theologians  ;  but,  as  the 
doubts  to  which  we  have  referred  have  been  promulgated  among 
the  laity,  their  refutation  must  also  find  a  place  in  general  literature. 

I  should  very  readily  have  extended  my  investigations  to  the 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  have  not,  in  the  first  place, 
because  the  results  of  researches  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  are 
of  a  less  stable  character  than  in  regard  to  the  New  ;  and,  more- 
over, because  those  who  are  not  theologians  by  profession  have  far 
less  need  of  such  inlormation  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  as  is 
here  given  concerning  the  New,  inasmuch  as  to  Christians  the  testi- 
mony of  Christ  and  his  apostles  respecting  the  Old  Testament,  the 
canon  of  which  was  then  completed,  affords  a  much  more  certain 
evidence  of  its  Divine  origin  (and  thus  of  its  genuineness),  than  any 
historical  reasoning  could  exhibit,  especially  since,  from  the  paucity 
of  sources  of  information,  the  latter  could  not  be  so  satisfactory  as 
it  is  in  relation  to  the  New  Testament.  As  to  unbelievers,  it  is  of 
much  greater  consequence  to  urge  the  claims  of  the  New  Testament 
upon  them  than  those  of  the  Old,  because,  so  long  as  they  are 
opposed  to  the  former,  they  certainly  will  not  admit  the  latter.  In 
my  closing  remarks,  however,  I  have  endeavoured  to  designate  briefly 
the  right  point  of  view  in  the  determination  of  critical  questions 
concerning  the  Old  Testament. 

To  conclude,  I  pray  that  the  Lord  may  be  pleased  graciously  to 
accompany  this  my  book  with  his  blessing,  and  cause  it  to  serve  as 
an  admonition  to  many  a  scoffer,  and  to  console  and  set  at  ease  the 
minds  of  such  as  have  been  perplexed  with  doubts. 

OLSHAUSEN. 


INTRODUCTION. 


FOR  fifteen  hundred  years  the  New  Testament,  as  we  now  pos- 
sess it,  has  been  generally  current  in  the  Christian  church,  and  con- 
stantly used,  as  well  publicly  in  the  churches  as  likewise  in  the 
domestic  circles  of  believers.  This  fact  is  admitted  by  the  scholars 
of  modern  times  unanimously,  since  it  can  be  shown  by  the  most 
certain  historical  proofs.  Hence  all  investigations  concerning  the 
genuineness  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  manner 
of  its  formation  relate  only  to  the  first  few  centuries  after  the  ascen- 
sion of  our  Saviour  and  the  death  of  the  Apostles.  Indeed,  it  is 
easily  seen  that  in  reality  everything  must  depend  on  this  primitive 
period  ;  for  after  the  New  Testament  was  once  made  up  and  gener- 
ally admitted  in  the  church,  it  could  not  be  lost.  Even  before  the 
invention  of  printing,  it  was  spread  abroad  in  all  parts  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  by  a  multitude  of  copies,  it  being  more  frequently  tran- 
scribed than  all  other  books  together.  Hence,  even  supposing  that 
the  New  Testament,  say  by  war  or  devastation,  had  utterly  perished 
in  any  country,  it  would  immediately  have  been  introduced  again 
from  surrounding  ones.  Of  this,  however,  there  is  no  example. 
Even  such  churches  as  entirely  lost  connection  with  the  great 
Catholic  church,  and  on  that  account  sank  to  a  very  low  point,  yet 
faithfully  preserved  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  is  proved  by  the  in- 
stance of  the  Ethiopian  church,  in  which,  on  its  discovery  after  the 
lapse  of  centuries,  the  Bible  was  found  still  in  use. 

From  the  great  importance  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  church 
and  the  whole  civilized  world,  it  was  a  very  natural  desire  on 
the  part'  of  scholars  to  know  exactly  how  this  momentous  book 
was  formed.  On  entering  upon  this  inquiry,  however,  in  the 
perusal  of  the  earliest  writers  of  the  church,  accounts  were  met  with 
which  are  somewhat  difficult  of  adjustment.  It  was  found  that  even 
before  the  compilation  of  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  into 
one  collection,  many  fathers  of  the  church,  perfectly  well  disposed 
toward  Christianity,  had  doubted  the  genuineness  of  particular  books 


XXX  INTRODUCTION. 

of  the  New  Testament.  This  circumstance  naturally  arrested  at- 
tention, and  the  next  inquiry  was,  what  grounds  such  early  fathers 
might  have  had  for  scruples  respecting  these  writings.  In  consider- 
ing this  question,  one  thought  he  had  discovered  this  reason,  and 
another  that ;  and  it  often  happened  that  these  reasons  were  con- 
sidered weighty  enough  to  justify  the  ancient  doubts  as  to  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  books.  It  was  at  the  Keformation,  particularly, 
that  this  free  investigation  of  the  Bible  began  to  extend  widely ; 
and  among  the  Reformers,  Luther  himself  was  specially  remarkable 
for  it.  From  these  inquiries  he  became  fully  convinced  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  most  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament ;  but  he 
supposed  it  necessary  to  regard  some  of  them,  e.  g.,  the  Epistle  of 
James,  and  John's  Revelation,  as  spurious.  In  this  opinion  he  cer- 
tainly erred,  particularly,  as  is  now  acknowledged  by  nearly  all 
scholars,  in  his  rejection  of  the  Epistle  of  James  ;  but  great  as  was, 
and  still  is,  his  authority  in  the  eyes  of  many  millions  of  Christians, 
his  belief  of  the  spuriousness  of  these  two  books  has  done  no  essen- 
tial harm ;  they  have  maintained  their  place  in  the  New  Testament 
since  as  before,  and  the  circumstance  of  his  rejecting  them  has  only 
shown  the  church  the  truth  of  the  old  remark,  that  even  God's 
saints  may  err. 

From  this  example  may  be  clearly  seen,  however,  the  total  ground- 
lessness of  the  fear  of  those  who  imagine  that  such  scrutinizing  in- 
quiries must  be,  in  and  of  themselves,  prejudicial  to  the  church. 
Such  examinations  of  the  origin  of  holy  writ,  and  its  individual 
books,  are  not  only  allowable,  but  absolutely  indispensable;  and  they 
will  injure  the  church  no  more  than  gold  is  injured  by  being  care- 
fully tried  in  the  fire.  The  church,  like  the  gold,  will  but  become 
purer  for  the  test.  In  the  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  the  eternal  revelation  of  Grod  reposes  in  quiet  security 
and  brightness.  A  wonderful  Divine  ordination  has  preserved  it  to 
us  without  any  essential  injury,  through  a  succession  of  dark  ages. 
It  exerts  at  the  present  day,  upon  all  minds  receptive  of  its  spirit, 
the  same  blessed,  sanctifying  influence  which  the  apostles  claimed 
for  it  eighteen  centuries  ago.  How,  then,  can  these  sacred  books 
suffer  from  careful  historical  inquiry  respecting  their  origin  ?  In- 
vestigation must  rather  serve  to  confirm  and  fully  establish  belief  in 
their  purity  and  genuineness.  That  this  is  actually  the  effect  of 
really  learned  investigations  is  apparent,  likewise,  from  the  following 
instance.  When  the  very  erudite  and  truly  pious  Professor  Bengel 
of  Tubingen  published  his  New  Testament  with  all  the  various 
readings  which  he  had  been  able  to  discover,  many  minds  were 
filled  with  anxiety,  thinking  that  an  entirely  new  Testament  would 
be  the  result  in  the  end,  if  all  the  various  readings  were  hunted  up. 
They  thought  it  would  be  better  to  leave  things  as  they  were.  But 


INTRODUCTION. 

mark — although  40,000  various  readings  were  discovered  in  the  an- 
cient MSS.,  the  New  Testament  was  hardly  at  all  altered  thereby  ; 
for  very  few  readings  were  of  a  nature  to  have  any  essential  bearing 
upon  a  doctrine.  Most  of  them  consisted  of  unimportant  transposi- 
tions, or  permutations  of  synonymous  words  (such  as  in  English  also 
for  and,  etc.)  ;  and  though  some  readings  were  more  considerable 
(as,  e.  g.,  the  celebrated  passage,  1  John  v.  7  :  "  For  there  are  three 
that  bear  witness  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  these  three  are  one,"  which  must  certainly  be  regarded 
as  spurious),  still  they  are  really  of  no  more  consequence.  For  such 
is  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  there  are  always  many 
proof-passages  for  any  important  doctrine  ;  and  hence,  although 
these  words  are  withdrawn  from  the  Bible,  their  purport  is  still 
eternally  true,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  remains  at  the 
present  time,  as  before,  the  doctrine  of  the  church.  Now  that  all 
the  MSS.  have  been  read  and  accurately  collated,  there  is  no  further 
occasion  for  fear  that  somewhere  or  other  something  new  may  be 
discovered,  which  will  thrust  the  old-loved  Bible  aside.  Moreover, 
the  principles  on  which  scholars  determine  the  right  one  among  dif- 
ferent readings  of  the  same  passage  are  so  skillfully  devised,  that  it 
is  almost  impossible  for  a  false  reading  to  creep  in  ;  and,  should  one 
individual  err  in  this  respect,  another  immediately  steps  in  and  cor- 
rects the  error. 

It  certainly  is  not  to  be  denied  that  pious  persons,  who  valued 
God's  word,  might  well  for  some  time  be  anxious  at  heart ;  for  one 
biblical  book  after  another  was  stricken  from  the  list  of  those  which 
were  genuine,  and  at  last  we  seemed  to  have  none  but  spurious 
books  in  the  Bible  ;  though,  on  the  other  hand,  it  remained  inex- 
plicable who  could  have  taken  pains  either  to  forge  so  many  spuri- 
ous writings  himself,  or  to  make  a  collection  of  them  after  they  were 
forged.  And  then,  what  could  have  been  the  character  of  the  de- 
ceitful author  or  authors  (for,  at  all  events,  the  books  must  hare 
been  written  by  somebody),  who  could  compose  such  writings — writ- 
ings which  for  many  centuries  have  consoled  millions  in  calamity 
and  death.  It  is  now  seen,  however,  that  the  reason  why  things 
were  so  for  a  time,  was,  not  that  men  inquired  and  investigated  (for 
no  injury  can  ever  accrue  on  that  account),  but  that  they  did  not 
prosecute  the  investigation  with  a  right  spirit  and  disposition. 
Every  one  can  see  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference  with  what 
feelings  we  engage  in  investigations  of  this  kind  in  regard  to  the 
sacred  books.  Suppose  a  man  to  see  in  the  books  of  the  New  Test- 
ament only  monuments  of  antiquity,  of  just  as  little  or  as  much 
value  as  other  ancient  writings,  to  have  felt  nothing  of  the  saving 
influence  of  God's  word  upon  his  heart,  and  on  that  account  to  be 
devoid  of  love  for  it ;  yea,  even  to  feel  vexed  that  others  should  hold 


XXX11  INTRODUCTION. 

it  so  dear,  and  enviously  and  maliciously  study  how  he  might  de- 
stroy their  delight  in  this  treasure — such  a  man,  with  his  perverse 
disposition,  would  rake  up  any  thing  and  every  thing  in  order  to  un- 
dermine the  foundation  of  the  church.  Whether  such  corrupt  mo- 
tives have  really  operated  in  the  heart  of  any  inquirer,  no  inan  can 
determine.  It  is  always  presumption  to  take  it  upon  ourselves  to 
judge  respecting  the  internal  position  or  intention  of  any  heart. 
We  may  even  suppose  one  who  rejects  the  whole  New  Testament  to 
possess  honesty  and  sincerity,  which  want  only  the  necessary  light 
of  conviction.  But  the  possibility  that  such  motives  may  afi'ect 
these  investigations,  certainly  cannot  be  denied  ;  and  that  is  fully 
enough  for  our  purpose.  If,  moreover,  we  look  at  the  manner  in 
which  a  Voltaire  among  the  French,  and  a  Bahrdt  among  the  Ger- 
mans, have  treated  the  sacred  books,  we  find  cogent  reason  to  fear 
that  they  did  not  keep  themselves  free  from  such  corrupt  motives, 
however  heartily  we  wish  that  God's  judgment  may  pronounce  them 
pure.  This  consideration  is  of  importance,  however,  because  we 
may  see  from  it  how  all  depends  on  this  interior  state  of  mind  with 
which  a  man  commences  his  undertakings  ;  so  that  even  the  noblest 
enterprise  may  by  an  unholy  intention  lead  to  pernicious  results. 
But,  setting  entirely  aside  the  possibility  that  a  man  may  undertake 
investigations  respecting  the  Scriptures  in  a  positively  corrupt  state 
of  mind,  he  may  also  do  much  injury  therein  from  levity  and  fri- 
volity. If  he  is  not  sufficiently  penetrated  with  a  conviction  of  the 
great  importance  of  investigations  concerning  the  genuineness  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  if  he  does  not  treat  the  weaknesses  of  the  church 
with  sufficient  tenderness  (for  she  may  feel  herself  wounded  in  her 
most  sacred  interests  by  the  inconsiderate  expression  of  doubts),  it 
may  easily  happen  that,  at  the  first  impulse,  upon  some  supposed 
discovery,  this  discovery  will  immediately  be  blazoned  before  the 
world,  without  having  been  previously  tested  with  soberness  and  care 
by  all  the  means  within  reach.  There  is  little  reason  to  doubt  that 
vanity  is  commonly  at  the  bottom  of  this  superficial  haste  ;  for  it  is 
always  delightful  to  what  Paul  calls  the  old  man  to  be  the  author 
of  any  new  and  striking  opinion.  Had  all  inquirers  been  able  prop- 
erly to  restrain  this  vain  desire  to  shine,  much  offence  would  with- 
out doubt  have  been  avoided,  and  many  a  heart  would  have  escaped 
considerable  suffering. 

Still,  in  what  department  of  life  or  knowledge  have  we  not  many 
errors  to  lament  ?  He  who  knows  his  own  heart  aright  will  there- 
fore forgive  learned  men,  if  they  have  now  and  then  been  governed 
by  vanity  or  other  wrong  motives.  The  misuse  of  a  good  thing 
should  not  abolish  its  use  ;  and  it  is  still  true  that  all  investigations 
respecting  the  sacred  books,  their  history  and  compilation,  are  in 
themselves  very  useful  and  necessary,  as  without  them  we  must  be 


INTRODUCTION. 

entirely  in  the  dark  in  regard  to  their  true  character.  We  will  only 
wish  that  henceforth  the  God  of  truth  and  love  may  infuse  truth 
and  love  into  the  hearts  of  all  inquirers,  and  then  it  will  not  be  of 
any  consequence  that  many  books  have  been  pronounced  spurious  ; 
for,  fortunately,  they  do  not  become  spurious  from  the  assertions  of 
this  or  that  man,  and  it  is  always  allowable  for  another  scholar  to 
point  out  the  errors  of  his  predecessor.  From  this  freedom  of  in- 
vestigation the  truth  will  certainly  come  to  light  by  degrees. 

If  the  thoughts  here  presented  be  duly  considered,  it  will  be 
readily  seen,  that  he  who  has  deep  love  for  the  word  of  God  need 
not  take  it  much  to  heart,  that  this  or  that  scholar  has  rejected  a 
particular  book.  After  long  investigation,  and  frequent  assertions 
that  most  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  spurious,  it  is 
nevertheless  now  agreed  among  scholars  generally,  that  all  the  lorit- 
mgs  of  the  New  Testament  are  genuine  productions  of  the  apostles. 
As  to  several  of  them,  it  is  true,  precise  certainty  has  not  been 
attained,  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  uniformity  will  be  exhibited 
soon  in  regard  to  these  likewise  ;  and,  moreover,  the  difference  of 
opinion  in  this  view  concerning  several  of  these  books  is  not  so 
dangerous  as  it  may  appear.  Concerning  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, e.  g.,  there  is  not  uniformity  of  sentiment  as  yet.  Many  very 
estimable  divines,  with  whom  I  feel  myself  constrained  to  coincide 
in  opinion  on  this  point,  think  that  the  Epistle  was  not  composed 
by  the  Apostle  Paul,  but  by  some  other  very  worthy  member  of  the 
apostolic  church.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  even  though  Paul  did 
not  write  the  Epistle,  we  cannot  on  this  ground  regard  it  as  spuri- 
ous, inasmuch  as  its  author  is  not  mentioned  in  it.  Hence  the  only 
question  in  relation  to  it  is,  who  was  its  author  ?  and  on  that  point 
it  is  hard  to  decide,  from  the  obscurity  of  the  accounts  given  by  the 
ancient  fathers  of  the  church.  All,  however,  regard  this  Epistle  as 
genuine,  i.  e.,  it  is  universally  believed  that  its  author  composed  it 
without  any  intention  to  palm  it  off  as  the  production  of  somebody 
else,  for  instance  'the  Apostle  Paul.  Had  that  been  his  purpose,  he 
would  have  taken  care  that  the  Epistle  should  at  once  be  recog- 
nised as  Paul's  production,  by  assigning  his  name  to  it,  or  in  some 
other  way.  The  case  is  certainly  different  as  to  the  second  Epistle 
of  Peter,  against  the  genuineness  of  which  many  doubts  are  preva- 
lent. In  relation  to  this  Epistle,  the  first  inquiry  is  not  who  was 
its  author,  for  the  apostle  Peter  is  most  clearly  designated  as  such, 
but  whether  Peter  was  really  and  truly  the  author.  If  the  conclu- 
sion be  that  the  Epistle  cannot  be  attributed  to  Peter,  then  it  must 
be  forged  or  spurious.  It  has  been  attacked  with  more  plausibility 
than  any  other  book  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  yet  much  may  be 
said  even  in  behalf*  of  this  Epistle,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  We 
may  therefore  assert,  that  by  Divine  Providence  some  good  has 

VOL.  I.— 3 


XXXIV  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  GENERALLY. 

already  accrued  from  the  rigorous  sifting  to  which  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  have  been  subjected  in  our  day.  True,  it  did  at 
first  seem  as  if  the  whole  New  Testament  would  in  the  course  of 
time  be  declared  spurious  ;  but  when  the  first  heat  was  over,  and 
sober  perspicacity  returned,  it  was  seen  by  inquirers  that  far  the 
greater  part  of  its  books  rested  on  a  firmer  historical  foundation 
than  most  works  of  profane  antiquity  which  all  the  world  regard  as 
genuine.  Hence  we  may  be  of  good  courage  in  entering  on  the  con- 
sideration of  the  individual  books  of  the  New  Testament,  for  the 
result  of  critical  investigation  is  by  no  means  so  much  to  be  dreaded 
as  is  sometimes  thought.  First,  however,  we  desire  to  premise 
something  further  respecting  the  Neio  Testament  generally. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  GENERALLY. 

THE  oldest  traces  of  the  existence  of  the  whole  New  Testament 
as  a  settled  collection,  occur  so  late  as  three  centuries  after  the  time 
of  the  apostles.  The  particular  reason  why  so  long  a  period  elapsed 
before  this  body  of  writings  became  definitely  determined,  was,  that 
its  individual  books,  which  of  course  existed  before  the  whole  collec- 
tion, were  at  first  circulated  in  part  singly  and  in  part  in  smaller 
collections.  For,  so  long  as  the  apostles  were  upon  earth,  and  the 
power  of  the  Spirit  from  on  high  was  in  lively  action  in  every  mem- 
ber of  the  church,  so  long  there  was  no  sensible  necessity  of  a  book 
to  serve  as  the  norm  or  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Whenever  any 
uncertainty  arose  in  regard  to  either,  application  was  made  to  one 
of  the  apostles,  and  his  advice  was  taken.  The  Epistles  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  owe  their  origin  to  such  inquiries.  .  Now  some  of  the 
apostles  lived  to  a  very  great  age.  Peter  and  Paul,  it  is  true,  died 
under  the  emperor  Nero  (67  A.  D.)  suffering  martyrdom  at  Home ; 
but  the  Evangelist  John,  who  outlived  all  the  rest,  was  upwards  of 
ninety  years  of  age  at  his  death,  which  did  not  happen  till  the  time 
of  the  emperor  Domitian,  at  the  close  of  the  first  century.  Hence, 
in  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles,  though  their  writings  were  highly 
valued,  they  were  naturally  not  regarded  as  sacred  writings,  which 
were  to  be  the  rule  of  fiiith  ;  because  there  was  a  more  immediate 
guarantee  of  truth  in  the  living  discourse  of  the  apostles  and  their 
first  companions,  as  also  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  so  powerfully 
exerting  its  influence  upon  the  church.  The  apostolic  writings, 
therefore,  were  indeed  read  in  the  public  assemblies,  but  not  alone, 
and  not  regularly.  The  book  for  regular  public  reading  was  still  the 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   GENERALLY.  XXXV 

Old  Testament  ;  and  this  is  always  to  be  understood  in  the  New 
Testament  when  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  mentioned.  Besides  the 
apostolic  writings,  however,  other  profitable  books  were  used  for  the 
edification  of  the  church.  In  particular,  we  have  still  some  remains 
of  the  writings  of  immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles,  commonly 
called  apostolic  fathers,  which  were  publicly  read  in  the  ancient 
churches.  These  men  all  lived  in  the  first  century  and  some  time  in 
the  second.  Among  them  are  Clement,  bishop  of  Home,  Ignatius, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  Hermas,  who  was 
probably  presbyter  at  Borne,  and  the  well-known  Barnabas.  The 
Epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp,  as  well  as  the  Book  of  Hermas, 
were  read  with  special  assiduity  in  the  ancient  churches.  On  ac- 
count of  the  great  antiquity  of  these  writings,  the  books  of  the  New 
^Testament  are  very  seldom  quoted  in  them,  and  much  of  what 
coincides  with  the  contents  of  the  New  Testament,  e.  g.,  Christ's 
sayings,  may  have  been  drawn  by  these  apostolic  fathers  from  oral 
tradition  as  well  as  from  perusal  of  the  Gospels.  Indeed  the  former 
source  is  perhaps  most  probable,  since  Christians  certainly  did  not 
then  read  the  Gospels  so  assiduously  as  they  were  read  in  later 
times,  when  they  could  no  longer  listen  to  the  living  discourse  of 
the  apostles  and  their  immediate  companions.  The  reason  why  so 
few  written  remains  of  the  immediate  disciples  of  our  Lord  are 
now  extant,  is  in  part  the  long  lapse  of  time,  which  has  destroyed 
many  books  once  current,  but  in  part  also  that  the  ancient  Chris- 
tians laboured  more  than  they  wrote.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
and  the  regulation  of  infant  churches,  consumed  so  much  of  their 
time,  that  little  remained  to  be  employed  in  composition.  More- 
over, in  the  first  century  it  was  always  as  when  Paul  wrote  the  fol- 
lowing declaration  (1  Cor.  i.  26)  :  "  Not  many  wise  men  after  the 
flesh,  not  many  noble  were  called."  For  the  most  part  only  people 
of  inferior  standing  joined  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  these  had 
neither  the  capacity  nor  the  inclination  to  labour  with  the  pen.  In 
these  circumstances  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  we  find  little  infor- 
mation concerning  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  first  cen- 
turies. That  they  did,  nevertheless,  exist  in  the  church  we  shall 
prove  hereafter.  But  it  might  be  expected,  then,  that  although  the 
most  ancient  Christians  do  not  speak  of  their  sacred  writings,  still 
the  heathen  writers  of  Greece  and  Eome  must  have  done  so,  consid- 
ering the  multiplicity  of  their  works  on  all  subjects.  The  heathen 
writers,  however,  who  were  contemporary  with  the  apostles  and  the 
apostolic  church,  make  no  mention  of  the  apostolic  writings,  because 
they  cared  nothing  at  all  about  the  Christian  church.  They  consid- 
ered the  Christians  as  only  a  sect  of  the  Jews,  and  despised  them  as 
much  as  they  did  the  latter.  They  therefore  credited  the  malicious 
reports  which  were  circulated  respecting  the  Christians,  and  treated 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   GENERALLY. 

them,  accordingly,  as  the  offscouring  of  humanity.  Such  is  the  pro- 
cedure of  Tacitus,  a  noble  Koman,  who  relates  the  persecution  of 
the  Christians  under  Nero.  Thus,  of  course,  nothing  could  induce 
the  Greeks  and  Komans  to  cultivate  acquaintance  with  the  writings 
of  the  Christians,  particularly  as  they  were  distasteful  on  another 
account,  from  their  not  being  clothed  in  the  same  elegant  language 
as  their  productions.  It  was  only  when  the  number  of  the  Chris- 
tians became  so  great  as  to  excite  apprehension,  that  they  began  to 
pay  attention  to  everything  of  importance  concerning  this  new  sect, 
and  so  at  last  to  their  sacred  books.  But  it  is  not  till  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  that  we  find  examples  like  that  of 
Celsus,  who,  in  order  to  confute  the  Christians,  made  himself 
acquainted  with  their  sacred  books. 

The  original  condition  of  the  primitive  church,  in  which  less 
stress  was  laid  on  the  Scriptures  than  on  the  word  of  the  apostles, 
was  not  indeed  of  long  continuance.  For  the  mighty  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit,  which,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  filled  the  disciples  of  our 
Saviour,  had  hardly  been  communicated  to  a  considerable  number 
of  other  minds,  and  lost  its  first  power,  ere  erroneous  schisms  began 
to  prevail  in  the  churches.  The  germs  of  these  may  be  discovered 
in  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  The  first  of  these  party  divisions 
of  the  ancient  church  was  that  of  the  Jewish  Christians.  As  early 
as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Paul  speaks  expressly  of  persons 
who  desired  to  bring  the  Galatian  Christians  again  under  the  yoke  of 
the  law.  They  wished  faith  in  Christ  and  his  redemption  to  be  re- 
garded as  insufficient  for  salvation,  unless  circumcision  and  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  were  added.  The  great  preacher  of  the  Gentiles, 
however,  zealously  opposes  this  restricted  idea  of  Christianity,  and 
shows  that  the  soul  must  lose  Christ,  if  it  seeks  to  use  any  other 
means  of  salvation.  It  was  the  object  of  the  law  of  Moses  to  lead 
by  its  injunctions  to  conviction  of  sin,  and  thus  to  a  desire  for  salva- 
tion ;  by  its  prophecies  and  types  of  Christ  it  was  a  schoolmaster 
to  guide  us  to  him  ;  but  salvation  itself  could  come  only  from 
Christ.  Still,  Paul  was  by  no  means  of  opinion  that  those  who 
were  Jews  by  birth  must  not  observe  the  law  when  they  became 
Christians  ;  he  rather  favoured  their  doing  so,  if  the  pious  customs 
of  their  fathers  had  become  dear  to  them,  or  if  their  own  weakness 
or  that  of  the  Jews  around  them  would  be  offended  by  the  contrary 
course.  Hence,  the  apostles  who  remained  in  Jerusalem  till  its  de- 
struction, as  did  Matthew  and  James,  observed  the  law  invariably, 
and  so  did  Paul  likewise,  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem.  But  the 
apostles,  as  well  as  their  true  disciples,  were  far  from  being  desirous 
to  impose  this  observance  of  the  law  upon  the  Gentiles  also.  The. 
milder  and  really  Christian  view  of  the  observance  of  the  law  was 
constantly  entertained  by  many  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine,  who 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   GENERALLY.  XXXVU 

in  later  times  were  called  Nazareans.  Many  on  the  contrary,  took 
the  wrong  course,  which  the  Apostle  Paul  reproved  in  certain  indi- 
viduals in  Galatia,  and  these  obtained  the  name  of  Ebionites. 
They,  however,  fell  into  other  heresies  besides  their  idea  of  the 
necessity  of  circumcision  and  observance  of  the  law  in  order  to  sal- 
vation, particularly  in  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ.  They  denied 
the  real  divinity  of  our  Lord,  and  regarded  him  as  a  son  of  Joseph, 
thus  seceding  wholly  from  the  true  church  of  Christ. 

In  precise  contrariety  to  this  Judaising  division  of  the  church, 
others  entirely  discarded  Judaism.  The  instructions  of  the  Apostle 
Paul  had  taken  deep  hold  of  their  minds,  and  given  them  a  strong 
conviction  that  the  gospel  went  far  beyond  the  formalities  of  Jewish 
practice,  and  would  bring  all  nations  under  its  sway.  But  from  this 
perfectly  correct  idea  they  wandered  into  an  opposition  to  the  Old 
Testament,  which  was  never  felt  in  the  slightest  degree  by  the 
Apostle  Paul.  They  remarked  rightly,  that  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  D  i  vine  justice  was  most  prominently  exhibited,  in  the  revelation 
of  a  rigorous  law  ;  while  the  New  most  fully  displayed  the  Divine 
mercy  in  the  revelation  of  forgiving  love.  But  this  fact,  which  was 
necessary  for  the  education  of  mankind,  since  the  need  of  salvation 
will  never  be  felt  until  the  claims  of  justice  are  perceived,  was  em- 
ployed by  them  for  the  purpose  of  wholly  disuniting  the  Old  Testa- 
ment from  the  New,  and  referring  it  to  a  distinct  author.  This  sect 
are  termed  Marcionites^  from  Marcion,  the  man  who  urged  this 
view  to  the  greatest  extreme.  In  connection  with  their  opposition 
to  Judaism  they  also  held  Gnostic  opinions  (whence  they  are  com- 
monly ranked  with  the  Gnostics),  and  these  gave  a  hue  to  their  ab- 
surd notion  that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  was  different  from 
that  of  the  New.  The  Old  Testament,  they  thought,  presented  to 
view  a  God  of  justice  without  love  ;  the  New  Testament  one  of  love 
without  justice  ;  while  in  reality  the  only  true  God  possesses  both 
attributes  in  perfection.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  in  these  notions 
Paganism  is  mingled  with  Christianity.  The  sublime  nature  of  the 
latter  was  admitted  by  the  Marcionites  ;  but  they  could  not  look 
upon  the  other  true  form  of  religion,  Judaism,  as  reconcilable 
with  it.  Hence,  although  they  no  longer  revered  the  numberless 
gods  of  the  heathen,  they  imagined  the  two  attributes  of  God,  jus- 
tice and  love,  to  center  in  two  distinct  divine  beings.  Besides  this 
ungrounded  violence  against  Judaism,  the  Marcionites  maintained 
a  silly  error  in  regard  to  Christ's  nature,  which  was  the  precise  op- 
posite of  the  opinion  of  the  Jewish  Christians.  The  latter  denied 
his  divinity,  and  the  Marcionites  asserted  that  he  had  no  true 
humanity.  The  humanity  of  Christ,  said  they,  was  only  apparent. 
In  their  opinion  a  purely  heavenly  vision  was  presented  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ ;  his  life  and  all  his  acts  in  life  were  merely 


XXXV111  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   GENERALLY. 

in  appearance,  designed  to  exhibit  him  to  men  in  a  human  man- 
ner. 

This  idea  the  Marcionites  entertained  in  common  with  the 
Gnostics,  properly  so  called,  who  did  indeed  judge  more  correctly 
than  the  former  in  regard  to  the  mutual  relation  of  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  but  on  other  points  maintained  the  most  grievous  errors. 
The  seeds  of  their  doctrine  are  referred  to  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  e.  g., 
in  2  Tim.  ii.  17,  18,  where  he  warns  against  the  heresy  of  Hymeneus 
and  Philetus,  who  maintained  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  had 
already  taken  place.  For,  as  they  denied  the  true  humanity  of 
Christ,  they  could  not,  of  course,  admit  the  corporeal  resurrection 
of  all  men  ;  and  therefore  understood  it  spiritually  of  the  interior 
vivification  of  the  heart  by  the  spirit  of  Christ.  Undoubtedly  this 
perversion  of  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  Gnostics  is  to  be  referred 
to  their  belief  in  another  being  besides  G-od.  While  they  regarded 
God  as  a  pure  spirit,  the  fulness  of  all  good  and  beauty,  they 
looked  upon  matter  as  another  being,  the  source  of  everything  cor- 
poreal and  visible,  as  also  of  all  evil.  It  was  from  a  mixture  of  the 
spiritual  and  the  material  that  this  world  originated,  and  particu- 
larly man,  who  at  one  time  displays  so  much  that  id  lovely  and  ele- 
vated, at  another  so  much  that  is  low  and  base.  Thus  the  only 
way  to  purify  and  sanctify  man  was,  that  he  should  be  gradually 
freed  from  everything  material,  and  by  the  divine  germs  of  life 
within  him,  be  brought  back  to  God.  It  is  easy  to  imagine  what  a 
distorted  view  of  all  the  doctrines  of  salvation  must  be  produced  by 
such  an  idea,  since  holy  writ  nowhere  countenances  the  opinion  that 
evil  resides  in  matter,  but  rather  expressly  refers  it  to  the  will  of 
the  creature,  who,  by  disobedience  to  the  holy  will  of  the  Creator, 
has  destroyed  in  himself  and  about  him  the  harmony  which  origin- 
ally prevailed  in  the  whole  universe. 

In  this  condition  of  things,  then,  when  Jewish  Christians,  Mar- 
cionites, and  Gnostics,  to  say  nothing  of  other  insignificant  sects, 
were  disturbing  the  unity  of  the  church,  it  was  seen  to  be  neces- 
sary that  every  effort  should  be  exerted  to  uphold  the  purity  of  the 
apostolic  doctrines.  But  as,  at  the  time  when  these  sects  became 
very  powerful,  the  apostles  were  no  longer  upon  earth,  no  direct  ap- 
peal could  be  made  to  their  authority,  whenever  oral  tradition  was 
adduced  against  them,  these  heretics  appealed  themselves  to  pre- 
tended communications  from  the  apostles.  The  Gnostics  in  par- 
ticular, asserted  that  the  deep  wisdom  which  they  taught  in  their 
schools  was  communicated  by  the  apostles  to  only  a  few ;  very 
simple  Christian  truth  alone,  they  supposed  was  only  for  the  multi- 
tude. What  remained,  therefore,  since  appeal  to  oral  tradition 
from  the  apostles  was  of  no  avail,  but  reference  to  written  authority  ? 
This  could  not  be  altered  and  falsified  like  oral  language  ;  it  was 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  GENEBALY.  XXXIX 

"better  suited  to  be  a  fixed,  unchangeable  norm  and  rule  of  faith, 
and  could  therefore  be  employed  with  exceeding  force  and  efficiency 
against  all  heretics.  Thus  the  time  was  now  come  when  a  sifting 
and  separation  of  the  many  professedly  Christian  writings  scattered 
abroad  in  the  church  was  necessary.  Moreover,  the  different  sects 
of  heretics  had  all  sorts  of  forged  writings  among  them,  in  which 
their  peculiar  opinions  were  presented  in  the  names  of  celebrated 
prophets  and  apostles.  Against  such  writings  explicit  declaration 
must  be  made,  in  order  to  preserve  the  true  apostolic  doctrine  from 
mixture  with  erroneous  and  confused  notions.  As  of  course,  how- 
ever, individual  fathers  of  the  church  could  have  but  little  influence 
against  the  established  sects  of  heretics,  it  was  felt  to  be  necessary 
that  real  Christians  should  be  more  closely  and  intimately  united, 
and  from  the  endeavour  consequently  made  sprang  the  so-called 
catholic,  i.  e.,  universal  church.  The  teachers  of  the  church,  as  well 
as  the  laity,  agreed  together  in  the  avowal  of  certain  doctrines, 
which  afterwards  formed  their  creed,  or  the  so-called  apostolic  sym- 
bol, because  in  them  the  true  apostolic  doctrines  were  stated  in  op- 
positioifc  to  heretics.  Thus  it  became  practicable  to  set  firm  bounds 
to  the  tide  of  corruption  ;  and  thus  the  various  sects  were  gradually 
suppressed  by  the  preponderant  influence  of  the  universal  church. 
Still  some  of  them  lasted  down  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries. 

This  sifting  of  the  various  Christian  writings  demands  a  more 
careful  consideration.  It  has  been  before  remarked  that  certain 
edifying  productions  of  estimable  fathers,  e.  g.}  Clement  of  Rome, 
Hermas  and  others,  were  publicly  read  along  with  those  of  the 
apostles.  Still,  however  profitable  the  perusal  of  these  writings 
might  be,  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic  church  correctly  felt  that  they 
could  be  of  no  service  against  heretics,  as  these  would  not  allow 
them  any  weight.  Since,  however,  they  commonly  acknowledged 
the  writings  of  the  apostles,  these  and  these  alone  could  be  appealed 
to  in  confutation  of  them.  All  such  writings,  therefore,  as  were  al- 
lowed to  be  the  compositions  of  other  authors  were  first  separated 
from  the  rest.  If  this  had  not  been  done,  it  would  have  remained 
uncertain  in  all  subsequent  time  what  books  were  properly  to  be 
regarded  as  pure  sources  of  apostolic  doctrine  ;  and  at  the  time  of 
the  Reformation  it  would  not  have  been  so  easy  to  restore  the  true 
uncoiTupted  doctrine  of  Christ  by  means  of  the  Scriptures,  as  it  ac- 
tually was,  on  account  of  the  circumstance  that  the  genuine  Scrip- 
tures were  possessed  in  a  separate,  fixed  collection.  Now,  in  the 
endeavour  to  gather  the  genuine  apostolic  writings  together  by  them- 
selves, some  of  them  were  very  easily  distinguished  from  the  rest 
as  the  apostolic  productions.  These  were  called  universally-admitted 
writings  ;  in  Greek  homologoumena.  Among  these  were  reckoned 
the  four  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  ;  the  Acts  of 


XI  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   GENERALLY. 

the  Apostles  ;  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  Romans,  Co- 
rinthians, Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  and  Thes- 
salonians,  to  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Philemon  ;  and  lastly,  two  Epis- 
tles of  John  and  Peter,  viz.,  only  the  first  and  largest  of  both 
apostles.  Among  these  writings,  it  is  true,  there  appear  two  which 
were  not  composed  by  apostles,  i.  e.,  by  members  of  the  first  circle 
of  twelve  men  which  our  Lord  Jesus  gathered  about  him.  [It  is  to 
be  observed  that  Paul  ranked  with  these  in  authority,  partly  because 
of  his  immediate  call  by  the  Lord  (Acts  ix.),  and  partly  on  account 
of  his  extended  and  blessed  labours  in  behalf  of  the  church.]  We 
mean  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the  work  of  Luke.  We  say  the  w'ork 
of  Luke,  for  Luke's  Gospel  and  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles  do  but 
make  two  halves  of  the  same  work,  as  is  plain  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Acts.  There  was  no  scruple  on  the  part  of  the  Catho- 
lic church  to  class  these  two  works  of  assistants  of  the  apostles  with 
those  really  apostolic,  because  both  wrote  under  the  influence  and 
approval  of  apostles.  According  to  the  unanimous  account  of  the 
most  ancient  Christian  Fathers,  Mark  wrote  under  the  guidance  of 
Peter,  and  Luke  under  that  of  Paul,  so  that  Mark's  was  regarded  as 
the  Petrine,  and  Luke's  as  the  Pauline  Gospel. 

These  universally-received  writings  of  the  apostles  were  divided 
into  two  collections.  First,  the  four  Gospels  by  themselves  formed 
a  collection  called  the  Gospel.  For,  although  this  collection  con- 
tained four  narratives  of  our  Lord's  life,  they  were  not  regarded  as 
different  writings,  but  only  as  different  aspects,  or,  so  to  speak,  sides 
of  one  and  the  same  work.  Hence  an  ancient  Father  of  the  church, 
Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France,  terms  the  four  Gospels,  the 
one  four-formed  or  four-sided  Gospel.  The  other  writings  consti- 
tuted a  second  collection,  which  was  termed  the  apostle,  or  the 
preaching  of  the  apostle.  Probably  the  name  took  its  rise  from  the 
fact,  that  at  first  the  Epistles  of  Paul  alone  were  collected  together, 
and  he  was  called  the  apostle,  by  way  of  eminence,  especially  in 
Europe,  on  account  of  his  active  labours.  To  this  collection  of 
Pauline  Epistles  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  added  subsequently, 
because  it  formed,  as  it  were,  an  introduction  to  the  Epistles,  con- 
taining an  account  of  Paul's  travels  and  labours  in  the  vineyard  of 
our  Lord.  Later  still  were  also  added  the  two  larger  Epistles  of 
John  and  Peter. 

Besides  these  generally  admitted  writings,  there  were  others, 
which  were  indeed  regarded  by  many  as  apostolic,  but  as  to  which 
some  estimable  persons  entertained  doubts,  viz.,  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  of  John,  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Epistles 
of  James  and  Jude,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  John's  Apo- 
calypse. Hence  these  were  termed  disputed  ivritings,  in  Greek, 
Antilegomena.  About  the  close  of  the  second  or  the  commence- 


THE    NEW   TESTAMENT   GENERALLY.  xl 

ment  of  the  third  century,  most  of  the  fathers  of  the  Catholic 
church  became  united  in  believing  the  genuineness  and  apostolic 
origin  of  all  these  writings  excepting  the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Apocalypse.  A  third  small  collection  was  now  formed  of 
these  epistles,  and  into  it  were  transferred  the  two  larger  Epistles 
of  John  and  Peter,  which  were  at  first  contained  in  the  second  col- 
lection. Consequently,  the  third  comprised  seven  Epistles,  which 
were  called  the  seven  Catholic,  i.  e.,  universally-admitted  Epistles, 
in  contra-distinction  from  the  various  rejected  writings.  Out  of 
these  collections  there  now  remained,  therefore,  only  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebreios,  and  the  Revelation  of  John.  In  regard  to  the  Epis- 
tle, as  has  been  already  mentioned,  no  doubt  was  entertained  of  its 
genuineness  ;  the  only  controversy  was,  whether  Paul  was  its  author 
or  not.  At  last,  the  opinion  that  it  was  Pauline  prevailed,  and  it 
was  introduced  into  the  collection  of  Pauline  Epistles  ;  though,  as 
the  collection  was  already  made  up,  it  was  placed  at  the  end,  after 
the  small  Epistle  to  Philemon.  In  the  Lutheran  version  of  the 
Bible,  however,  the  Epistle  obtained  another  place,  viz.,  between 
the  Third  Epistle  of  John  and  the  Epistle  of  James,  for  reasons 
which  will  be  stated  hereafter.  The  whole  question,  therefore,  in 
regard  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  of  little  consequence;  for, 
if  Paul  did  not  write  it,  it  is  certain  that  the  author  of  it  wrote  un- 
der his  guidance  (as  will  be  shown  more  at  length  in  the  sequel), 
and  the  case  is  the  same  with  this  Epistle  as  with  the  Gospels  of 
Mark  and  Luke.  It  is  otherwise,  however,  with  the  history  of  the 
Apocalypse,  which  also  will  be  particularly  related  hereafter.  Al- 
though it  has  the  oldest  and  most  trustworthy  witnesses  in  its  be- 
half, indeed  beyond  most  of  the  writings  of  antiquity,  it  still 
early  met  with  numerous  assailants,  on  account  of  its  contents. 
True,  many  did  not  exactly  regard  it  as  spurious  ;  they  only  main- 
tained that  it  was  written,  not  by  John  the  Evangelist,  but  by  an- 
other man  of  less  note,  bearing  the  same  nama  Others,  however, 
felt  such  excessive  dislike  towards  the  book,  that  they  declared  it 
must  have  been  composed  by  the  worst  of  heretics.  Yet  here,  too, 
truth  fortunately  obtained  the  victory,  and  the  genuine  apostolic 
character  of  this  elevated  production  of  prophetic  inspiration  was  at 
last  acknowledged.  As  the  three  smaller  collections  were  already 
made  up,  nothing  remained  but  to  place  it  at  the  end  of  them  all. 
This  was  precisely  the  position  to  which  the  Apocalypse  belonged ; 
for,  considering  the  Gospels  to  be,  as  it  were,  the  root  of  the  tree 
of  life  exhibited  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  and  the  Epistles  as 
the  branches  and  blossoms,  the  Apocalypse  may  be  regarded  as  the 
fully  ripened  fruit.  It  contains  a  picture  of  the  development  of 
God's  church  down  to  the  end  of  time,  and  therefore  forms  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Bible  as  properly  as  Genesis  forms  its  commencement 


THE   COLLECTION   OP   THE   GOSPELS. 

In  order  that  the  various  writings  and  small  collections  might 
be  permanently  united,  the  smaller  divisions  were  entirely  given 
up  in  the  fourth  century,  and  henceforward  there  was  but  one  great 
collection,  containing  all  the  New  Testament  writings.  A  decisive 
decree  on  this  point  was  issued  by  a  council  held  in  the  year  393, 
at  Hippo,  now  Bona,  in  Africa.  In  itself  considered,  this  union  of 
the  smaller  collections  into  a  single  large  one  is  of  no  consequence, 
and  hence,  too,  it  is  of  none  that  it  took  place  at  so  late  a  period  ; 
for,  as  early  as  during  the  third  century  and  the  commencement  of 
the  fourth,  there  was  entire  unanimity  in  regard  to  all  essential 
questions  concerning  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  the  fol- 
lowing particular  history  of  them  will  evince.  Still  there  was  this 
advantage  arising  from  the  union  of  the  apostolic  writings  into  one 
body,  viz.,  that  they  were  in  a  more  safe  and  determinate  form,  and 
might  now  be  placed  with  the  Old  Testament  as  a  coniplete^econd 
part  of  holy  writ. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  COLLECTION  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

'i.  OF  the  three  smaller  collections  of  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  which,  as  we  have  before  stated,  were  in  use  in  the 
ancient  church,  none  can  be  traced  further  back  than  that  of  the 
Gospels.  We  find  so  many  and  so  weighty  testimonies  in  its  be- 
half, that  it  would  seem  as  though  Providence  designed  that  this 
palladium  of  the  church  should  be  in  a  special  manner  secure  against 
all  attacks.  Not  only  is  it  the  case  that  some  of  the  most  ancient 
fathers  testify  to  its  existence,  as,  e.  g.,  Tertullian,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Irenaeus,  Justin  Martyr  (all  of  whom  lived  in  the 
second  century  after  Christ,  and  were  preceded  only  by  the  so-called 
apostolic  fathers)  ;  but,  moreover,  the  witnesses  in  its  behalf  be- 
longed to  all  parts  of  the  ancient  church.  Tertullian  lived  in  Car- 
thage ;  Clement  in  Egypt ;  Irenaeus  was  born  in  Asia  Minor,  and 
became  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France  ;  Justin  Martyr  was  born  in 
Palestine  (in  Flavia  Neapolis,  otherwise  called  Sichem),  but  taught 
in  Rome.  Thus  the  testimonies  in  favour  of  the  collection  of  the 
Gospels  come  from  all  the  chief  stations  in  the  ancient  church  ;  and 
this  circumstance,  of  course,  supposes  its  very  general  diffusion. 
The  greatest  number  of  testimonies,  all  proceeding  from  one  pro- 
vince, would  not  be  of  so  much  weight  as  these  coincident  declara- 
tions from  the  most  various  parts  of  the  world,  as  to  the  currency 
of  the  Gospels.  A  circumstance,  however,  still  more  important  than 


THE   COLLECTION   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  xliii 

these  testimonies  from  different  parts  of  the  ancient  church  is,  that 
not  only  the  members  of  the  Catholic  orthodox  church,  but  the 
heretics  also,  were  familiar  with  our  Gospels.  If  it  be  considered, 
what  violent  mutual  animosity  there  was  between  the  fathers  of  the 
Catholic  church  and  the  heretics  ;  that  one  party  would  not  adopt 
or  receive  anything  at  all  from  the  other,  but  was  rather  disposed 
to  reject  it,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  came  from  so  detested  a  quar- 
ter ;  no  one  can  help  seeing  in  the  circumstance  that  both  the 
Catholic  church  and  the  heretics  were  familiar  with  the  collection 
of  our  Gospels — an  uncommonly  cogent  proof  of  its  genuineness  and 
great  antiquity.  For,  had  it  been  formed  after  the  rise  of  these 
sects,  either  within  the  pale  of  the  Catholic  church,  or  in  the  midst 
of  this  or  that  party  of  heretics,  it  wpuld  be  wholly  inexplicable, 
how  it  could  have  been  introduced  into  these  sects,  from  the  church, 
or,  vice,  versa,  into  the  church  from  these  sects.  Thus  the  collection 
of  our  Gospels  must  at  all  events  have  taken  place  before  such  sects 
arose  ;  for  on  no  other  ground  can  it  be  explained  how  these  books, 
whicli  were  generally  known  and  used  before  open  rupture  in  the 
church,  should  have  been  admitted  as  genuine  by  both  parties  alike. 
Now  the  sects  of  the  Gnostics  and  Marcionites  originated  as  early 
as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ;  and  from  this  circumstance 
we  are  entitled  to  regard  the  collection  of  the  Gospels  as  in  exist- 
ence at  a  period  very  near  the  times  of  the  apostles.  Besides  the 
heretics,  moreover,  we  find  pagans  acquainted  with  the  collection 
of  the  Gospels.  We  refer  particularly  to  Celsus,  a  violent  opponent 
to  Christianity,  against  whose  attacks  it  was  defended  by  Origen. 
It  is  true  this  man  did  not  live  till  about  two  hundred  years  after 
the  birth  of  Christ  (we  do  not  know  the  precise  period)  ;  but  it  is, 
notwithstanding,  a  decisive  evidence  of  the  general  diffusion  and 
acknowledgment  of  the  Gospels  throughout  the  church,  that  they 
are  cited  and  assailed  by  pagan  opponents  as  official  source.s  of  the 
Christian  doctrines.  For,  had  Celsus  been  aware  that  Christians 
themselves  did  not  acknowledge  these  writings,  it  would  have  been 
an  absurd  undertaking  to  refute  the  Christians  from  the  contents 
of  the  books. 

Further,  it  is  a  wholly  peculiar  circumstance  in  the  history  of  the 
Gospels,  and  one  which  goes  a  great  way  to  sustain  their  genuine- 
ness, that  we  nowhere  find,  in  any  writer  of  any  part  of  the  ancient 
worM  any  indication  that  only  a  single  one  of  the  four  Gospels  was 
in  u^o,  or  even  known  to  exist  separately.  All  possessed  the  entire 
collection  of  the  Gospels.  It  is  true  there  is  one  writer,  Papias, 
bish  ••}»  of  Hicrapolis  in  Phrygia,  concerning  whom  there  is  no  ex- 
press statement  that  he  had  all  the  four  Gospels.  But  the  manner 
in  whicli  Eusebius  spe.iks  respecting  him  in  his  Church  History  is 
such  that  there  is  nothing  questionable  in  this  silence.  Eusebius 


THE   COLLECTION   OF   THE   GOSPELS. 

adduces  from  a  work  of  Papias,  now  not  extant,  some  notices  of 
Matthew  and  Mark.  It  is  certainly  true  that  nothing  is  said  of 
Luke  and  John  ;  but  this  is  undoubtedly  because  the  ancient 
bishop  had  not  made  any  particular  observations  on  these  two 
Gospels.  His  silence  respecting  them  is  the  less  an  evidence  that 
he  was  not  acquainted  with  them,  as  the  theatre  of  the  labours  of 
Papias  was  in  the  vicinity  of  Ephesus,  where  John  lived  so  long, 
and  moreover  wrote  his  Gospel.  On  this  account  Papias  must 
necessarily  have  been  acquainted  with  it.  Eusebius,  moreover,  re- 
marks, in  the  same  place,  that  Papias  was  acquainted  with  the  first 
Epistle  of  John.  How  much  rather,  then,  with  his  Gospel  ?  Thus 
Eusebius  says  nothing  concerning  Luke  and  John,  only  because  it 
was  a  matter  of  course  that  Papias  was  familiar  with  them,  and  the 
latter  had  not  said  anything  special  in  regard  to  their  origin.  There 
were,  moreover,  some  heretics  who  made  use  of  but  one  Gospel,  e.  g.t 
Marcion  used  Luke,  and  the  Ebionites  Matthew  ;  but  they  had 
special  reasons  for  doing  so  in  their  doctrinal  opinions.  They  did 
not,  by  any  means,  deny  the  three  other  Gospels  to  be  genuine ; 
they  only  asserted  that  their  authors  were  not  true  disciples  of  our 
Lord.  Marcion  held  the  erroneous  notion  that  all  the  disciples, 
with  the  exception  of  Paul,  still  continued  half  Jews.  The  Jewish 
Christians  maintained  that  all  the  disciples,  except  Matthew,  had 
strayed  away  too  far  from  Judaism,  and  on  that  account  did  not 
receive  their  writings.  In  this  state  of  the  case  there  is  clear  evi- 
dence from  their  opinions  also  that  the  Gospels  are  genuine,  and 
were  in  that  day  generally  diffused  in  the  church.  Now,  as  the  col- 
lection of  our  four  Gospels  existed  so  very  early  and  so  universally, 
the  inquiry  occurs,  how  it  could  have  originated  ?  Shall  we  say 
that  a  particular  individual  or  church  may  have  formed  it,  and  it 
may  then  have  spread  itself  everywhere  abroad  ?  This  supposition 
seems  to  be  countenanced  by  the  circumstance  of  the  general  uni- 
formity as  to  the  order  of  the  four  Gospels.  A  very  few  MSS.  place 
John  next  to  Matthew,  in  order  that  the  writings  of  the  apostles 
may  be  by  themselves.  Clearly,  however,  this  transposition  arose 
from  the  fancy  of  some  copyist,  and  has  no  historical  foundation. 
There  is  still,  therefore,  positive  authority  for  the  universally  received 
arrangement.  The  most  weighty  circumstance  against  the  opinion 
that  the  first  collection  of  the  Gospels  was  made  in  a  particular 
place,  and  Diffused  itself  abroad  from  thence,  is,  that  we  have  no 
account  respecting  such  a  process,  though  we  should  expect  one, 
from  the  fact  that  John  lived,  and  moreover  wrote  his  Gospel,  at  so 
late  a  period.  For  this  reason  had  the  Evangelist  John  himself,  as 
some  suppose,  or  any  other  man  of  high  authority  in  the  church, 
formed  the  collection  of  the  Gospels,  we  should,  one  would  think, 
have  had  an  account  of  its  formation,  as  it  could  not  have  taken 


THE   COLLECTION  OF   THE  GOSPELS.  xlv 

place  before  the  end  of  the  first  or  commencement  of  the  second 
century,  which  period  borders  very  closely  on  that  from  which  we 
derive  so  many  accounts  concerning  the  Gospels.  But  this  same 
circumstance  that  we  read  nothing  at  all  respecting  a  collector  of 
the  Gospels,  that  writers  have  been  left  to  conjecture  in  regard  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  collection  of  them  was  made,  leads  to  an- 
other view  of  its  formation,  which  casts  the  clearest  light  on  the 
genuineness  of  the  books.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
our  Gospels  all  originated  in  capital  cities  of  the  Eoman  empire. 
Matthew  probably  wrote  his  in  Jerusalem,  the  centre  of  Judaism, 
where  also,  as  appears  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  a  large 
Christian  church  was  early  gathered.  Mark  and  Luke  undoubtedly 
wrote  in  Home,  the  political  centre  of  the  empire,  to  which  innu- 
merable multitudes  of  men  thronged  from  all  quarters  of  the  world 
for  the  transaction  of  business.  In  this  city,  too,  a  flourishing 
Christian  church  was  early  formed,  as  is  seen  from  the  Epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Romans,  which  was  written  before  Peter  or  Paul,  or 
any  apostle,  had  visited  Eome.  Lastly,  John  wrote  at  Ephesus,  a 
large  and  thriving  city  of  Asia  Minor.  It  was  the  residence  of 
many  learned  and  ingenious  heathen.  The  large  church  at  Ephesus 
was,  according  to  the  Acts,  founded  by  Paul.  It  was  fostered  by 
the  labours  of  John.  Now,  let  it  be  considered  how  many  thousands 
must  consequently  have  been  most  exactly  aware  who  wrote  the 
Gospels,  and  it  will  be  perceived  that  these  circumstances  afford 
weighty  evidence  of  their  genuineness,  particularly  as  there  is  not  to 
be  found  in  a  single  ancient  writer  the  faintest  trace  of  any  doubt  in 
regard  to  it ;  for  the  heretics,  who,  as  we  have  remarked,  disputed 
the  Gospels  in  part,  did  not  deny  their  genuineness  (they  rather 
fully  admitted  it),  but  only  their  obligatory  authority.  Now,  as 
very  active  intercourse  was  maintained  among  the  Christians  of  the 
ancient  church,  partly  by  constant  epistolary  communications,  and 
partly  by  frequent  personal  visits,  nothing  is  more  natural  than  the 
supposition  that  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  very  soon  transmitted 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  was  composed  in  the  midst  of  them,  to 
Borne,  Ephesus,  Alexandria,  and  other  places,  and  that,  on  the  other 
hand,  those  of  Rome  and  Ephesus  also  transmitted  the  writings  com- 
posed among  them  to  the  other  churches.  In  every  church  there 
were  archives,  in  which  were  deposited  important  documents.  Into 
these  archives  of  the  church  the  Gospels  were  put,  and  as  only  these 
four  Gospels  were  composed  or  vouched  for  by  apostles,  the  collection 
of  Gospels  took  its  rise  not  in  this  or  that  place,  but  in  every  quarter 
simultaneously.  This  statement  of  the  matter  is,  in  the  first  place, 
strictly  in  accordance  with  the  circumstances  known  to  us  in  regard 
to  the  ancient  church,  and  also  the  only  one  capable  of  explaining 
satisfactorily  the  existence  of  the  collection  in  everybody's  hands, 


THE   COLLECTION   OF   THE   GOSPELS. 

while  no  one  knew  how  and  whence  it  originated.  As,  further,  we 
find  no  other  Gospel  but  these  in  general  use,  it  is  clearly  evident 
that  only  these  four  were  of  apostolic  origin.  It  is  true  we  find  in 
circulation  in  individual  churches  Gospels  which  appear  to  have 
differed  from  our  own,  e.  g,,  the  church  at  Rhossus  in  Cilicia,  a  pro- 
vince of  Asia  Minor,  made  use  of  a  Gospel  of  Peter,  and  in  Alexan- 
dria one  called  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  was  current.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  these  two  writings  were  either  the  same  or  at 
least  were  very  nearly  allied,  and  also  bore  close  affinity  to  our 
Mark  ;  and  in  that  case  their  use  is  as  easily  accounted  for  as  the 
use  of  Matthew  and  Luke  by  the  Ebionite  and  Marcionite  sects  in 
Recensions  somewhat  altered  from  the  original. 

From  this  cursory  view  of  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels,  it  cannot  but  be  admitted,  that  no  work  can 
be  adduced,  out  of  the  whole  range  of  ancient  literature,  which  has 
so  many  and  so  decisive  ancient  testimonies  in  its  behalf  as  they. 
It  is  therefore,  in  reality,  a  mere  laboured  effort  to  try  to  maintain 
and  demonstrate  the  spuriousness  of  the  Gospels.  Since,  however, 
this  attempt  is  made,  it  may  reasonably  be  inquired  :  Whence  is 
derived  any  occasion  for  doubt  ?  Is  not  everything,  without  excep- 
tion, in  favour  of  their  genuineness  ?  We  cannot  but  say,  that  no 
thorough,  serious-minded  scholar,  would  ever  have  denied  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Gospels,  had  not  the  question  in  regard  to  their  genu- 
ineness been  conjoined  with  another  investigation  of  extreme  diffi- 
culty and  intricacy.  In  the  ardent  endeavour  to  get  rid  of  this 
difficulty,  scholars  have  been  seduced  into  the  invention  of  hypo- 
theses irreconcilable  with  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  They 
should,  on  the  contrary,  have  set  out  invariably  with  the  admission 
of  their  genuineness,  as  an  irrefragable  fact,  and  then  have  em- 
ployed only  such  modes  of  solving  the  difficulty  above  alluded  to  as 
were  based  on  the  supposition  of  their  genuineness.  The  difficulty 
is  this.  On  a  close  comparison  of  the  first  three  Gospels  we  dis- 
cover a  very  striking  coincidence  between  them.  This  is  exhibited, 
not  merely  in  the  facts  and  the  style,  but  also  in  the  order  of  narra- 
tion, in  the  transitions  from  one  narrative  to  another,  and  in  the 
use  of  uncommon  expressions,  and  other  things  of  the  same  cha- 
racter. Further,  the  coincidence  is  interrupted  by  just  as  striking 
a  dissimilarity,  in  such  a  manner  that  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
difficult  to  explain  how  this  coincidence  and  this  dissimilarity,  as  it 
is  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  can  have  originated.  This  is  a  purely 
learned  investigation,  which*  writers  should  have  quietly  prosecuted 
as  such,  without  allowing  it  to  influence  the  question  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  Such  has  been  its  influence,  however, 
that  some  scholars  suppose  a  so-called  Protevangelion,  or  original 
Gospel,  which  the  apostles,  before  they  left  Jerusalem,  and  scat- 


THE   COLLECTION   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  xlvii 

tered  themselves  abroad  over  the  whole  earth,  prepared,  in  order  to 
serve  as  a  guide  to  them  in  their  discourses.  This  writing  is  sup- 
posed to  have  contained  the  principal  events  of  the  life  of  our  Lord. 
It  was  carried  into  all  lands  by  the  apostles.  Now,  in  these  differ- 
ent countries,  it  is  said  by  the  defenders  of  this  hypothesis,  additions 
were  gradually  made  to  this  original  Gospel.  These  were  at  first 
short,  and  thus  arose  the  Gospels  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  the 
Marcionites,  and  others  ;  afterwards  they  became  longer,  and  in 
this  way,  at  last,  our  Gospels  were  produced.  Now,  as  it  cannot  be 
stated  by  whom  these  additions  were  made,  this  view  is  really  equi- 
valent to  making  our  Gospels  spurious,  for,  according  to  it,  only 
the  little  portion  of  them  which  existed  in  the  brief  original  Gospel 
is  of  apostolic  authority.  But,  setting  aside  the  fact  that  the  hy- 
pothesis must  be  fals%  for  this  very  reason,  because  it  opposes  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  which  can  be  demonstrated  by  historical 
proof;  this  theory  has  been,  moreover,  of  late  utterly  discarded  by 
learned  men  on  other  grounds.  In  the  first  place,  no  ancient  Chris- 
tian writer  exhibits  any  acquaintance  with  such  an  original  Gospel ; 
and  is  it  conceivable  that  the  knowledge  of  so  remarkable  a  work 
should  have  been  totally  lost  ?  Then,  too,  the  idea  that  a  guide 
was  composed  by  the  apostles  for  themselves,  in  order  to  preserve 
unity  in  doctrine,  is  not  at  all  suited  to  the  apostolic  period.  At 
this  period  the  Holy  Spirit  operated  with  its  primeval  freshness  and 
power.  This  Spirit,  which  guided  into  all  truth,  was  the  means  of 
preserving  unity  among  the  apostles.  Not  an  individual  of  those 
witnesses  to 'the  truth  needed  any  external  written  guide.  Besides, 
this  supposition  solves  the  difficulty  in  question,  respecting  the 
coincidence  of  the  Gospels,  only  in  a  very  meagre  and  forced  manner, 
while  there  is  a  much  simpler  way  of  reaching  the  same  result  far 
more  satisfactorily.  We  must  suppose  more  than  one  source  of  this 
characteristic  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Sometimes  one  Evangelist 
was  certainly  made  use  of  by  another.  This  remark  is  applicable 
particularly  to  Mark,  who  undoubtedly  was  acquainted  with  and 
made  use  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  Moreover,  there  existed  short 
accounts  of  particular  parts  of  the  Gospel-history,  such  as  narratives 
of  particular  cases  of  healing,  relations  of  journeys,  and  the  like. 
Now,  when  two  Evangelists  made  use  of  the  same  brief  account, 
there  naturally  resulted  a  resemblance  in  their  history.  Still,  as 
each  was  independent  in  his  use  of  these  accounts,  some  variations 
also  occurred.  Finally,  much  of  the  similarity  between  them  arose 
from  oral  narrations.  It  is  easy  to  believe  that  certain  portions  of 
the  evangelical  history,  e.  g.,  particular  cures,  parables,  and  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord,  were  repeated  constantly  in  the  very  same  way, 
because  the  form  of  the  narrative  imprinted  itself  with  very  great 
exactness  on  every  one's  memory.  In  this  manner  the  songs  of 


THE  INDIVIDUAL   GOSPELS  AND 

Homer  and  Ossian  were  long  transmitted  from  mouth  to  mouth. 
Uniformity  in  an  oral  mode  of  narration  is  not  sufficient  of  itself 
alone  to  explain  the  relation  between  the  Gospels,  because  in  prose 
it  is  impossible  (in  poetry  it  is  much  easier)  to  imprint  on  the 
memory  minute  traits  and  important  forms  of  expression  with  so 
much  exactness  as  would  be  necessary  to  account  for  the  mutual 
affinity  of  the  Gospels  ;  and,  moreover,  could  their  similarity  be  thus 
explained,  the  variations  between  them  would  only  stand  out  in 
more  troublesome  relief.  But  that  which  cannot  be  effected  by  a 
single  hypothesis,  can  be  by  that  in  conjunction  with  others.  And 
here,  perhaps,  we  may  see  the  true  solution  of  a  problem  which  has 
so  long  occupied  the  attention  of  theologians.  But,  whatever 
opinion  be  entertained  on  this  point,  the  investigation  of  it  must  al- 
ways be  kept  aloof  from  the  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gos- 
pels, which  should  first  be  established  or  denied  on  historical 
grounds.  Thus  will  the  collection  of  the  Gospels  be  secure  from 
all  danger. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   INDIVIDUAL   GOSPELS   AND   THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES. 

OF  the  four  Gospels,  that  of  Matthew  holds  the  first  place  in  the 
canon.  The  author  of  this  first  Gospel  bore,  besides  the  name  of 
Matthew,  that  of  Levi  also  (Matth.  ix.  9  ;  Mark  ii.  14),  and  was  the 
son  of  a  certain  Alpheus,  of  whom  we  have  no  further  information. 
Of  the  history  of  Matthew  very  little  is  known,  in  addition  to  the 
accounts  in  the  New  Testament.  After  our  Saviour  called  him 
from  his  station  as  receiver  of  the  customs,  he  followed  him  with 
fidelity,  and  was  one  of  the  twelve  whom  Jesus  sent  forth  to  preach. 
His  labours  as  an  apostle,  however,  seem  to  have  been  wholly  con- 
fined to  Palestine  ;  for,  what  is  related  of  Matthew's  travels  in 
foreign  countries  is  very  doubtful,  resting  only  on  the  authority  of 
rather  late  ecclesiastical  writings.  But  the  information  respecting 
him  which  is  of  most  importance  to  our  purpose  is  given  with  per- 
fect unanimity  by  the  oldest  ecclesiastical  writers,  who  declare  that 
Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel.  It  is  true  that  they  likewise  subjoin, 
equally  without  exception,  that  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  for  believing  Jews  ;  and  that  this  account  must  be  cor- 
rect, we  know  from  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine, 
who  spoke  Hebrew,  all  made  use  of  a  Gospel  which  they  referred  to 
Matthew.  This  Hebrew  Gospel  did,  indeed,  differ  from  our  Greek 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  for  it  contained  many  things  wanting  in  our 


THE-  ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES. 

Gospel ;  but  still  it  was  in  general  so  exactly  like  the  latter,  that  a 
father  of  the  fourth  century,  the  celebrated  Jerome,  felt  himself  en- 
titled to  treat  the  Hebrew  Gospel  expressly  as  Matthew's.  It  is  a 
singular  circumstance,  however,  that,  while  all  the  fathers  of  the 
church  declare  Matthew  to  have  written  in  Hebrew,  they  all,  not- 
withstanding, make  use  of  the  Greek  text  as  of  genuine  apostolic 
origin,  without  remarking  what  relation  the  Hebrew  Matthew  bore 
to  our  Greek  Gospel ;  for  that  the  oldest  fathers  of  the  church  did 
not  possess  Matthew's  Gospel  in  any  other  form  than  that  in  which 
we  now  have  it,  is  fully  settled.  That  we  have  no  definite  informa- 
tion on  this  point  is  undoubtedly  owing  to  accidental  causes  ;  but, 
since  it  is  so,  that  we  have  not  any  certain  account,  we  can  only 
resort  to  conjecture  in  regard  to  the  mutual  relation  of  the  Greek 
and  Hebrew  Matthew.  Existing  statements  and  indications,  how- 
ever, enable  us  to  form  conjectures  which,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
probable,  are  essentially  correct.  The  idea  that  some  unknown  in- 
dividual translated  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  that  this 
translation  is  our  canonical  Gospel,  is,  in  the  first  place,  contradicted 
by  the  circumstance  of  the  universal  diffusion  of  this  same  Greek 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  makes  it  absolutely  necessary  to  suppose 
that  the  translation  was  executed  by  some  one  of  acknowledged  in- 
fluence in  the  church,  indeed,  of  apostolic  authority.  In  any  other 
case,  would  not  objections  to  this  Gospel  have  been  urged  in  some 
quarter  or  other,  particularly  in  the  country  where  Matthe'  himself 
laboured,  and  where  his  writings  were  familiarly  known  ?  There  is 
not,  however,  the  slightest  trace  of  any  such  opposition  to  it.  Be- 
sides, our  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  of  such  a  peculiar  character, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  regard  it  as  a  mere  version.  Does  a 
man,  who  is  translating  an  important  work  from  one  language  into 
another,  allow  himself  to  make  alterations  in  the  book  which  he  is 
translating,  to  change  the  ideas  it  presents  ?  Something  of  the 
kind  must  be  supposed  to  have  been  done  in  the  Greek  Gospel  of 
Matthew  with  regard  to  the  Hebrew.  This  is  beyond  denial,  if  it 
be  considered  merely,  how  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
are  treated.  These  do  not  coincide  either  with  the  Hebrew  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  or  with  the  version  in  common  use  at  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  viz.,  the  Septuagint  (which  was  executed  by  some 
learned  Jews  at  Alexandria,  several  centuries  before  the  birth  of 
Christ)  ;  but  rather  exhibit  an  independent  text  of  their  own.  Now, 
as  sometimes  the  argument  is  wholly  based  on  this  independent 
character  of  the  text  in  the  citations  from  the  books  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament, and  could  not  have  accorded  at  all  with  the  Hebrew  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  it  is  clear  that  our  Greek  Gospel  must  be  something 
else  than  a  mere  version.  It  is  rather  an  independent  work,  though 
closely  allied  to  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  the  apostle.  Now,  since  this 
VOL.  L— 4 


1  THE   INDIVIDUAL   GOSPELS  AND 

same  work  is  universally  regarded  as  an  apostolic  production,  and 
as  having  been  written  by  Matthew,  there  is  no  more  simple  and 
effectual  mode  of  solving  all  the  characteristics  of  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  than  to  suppose  that  Matthew  himself,  luhen  he  had  com- 
posed the  Hebrew  Gospel,  executed  likewise  a  free  translation  or  new 
composition  of  it  in  the  Greek  language.  It  makes  no  essential  dif- 
ference, if  we  suppose  that  a  friend  of  Matthew  wrote  the  Greek 
work  under  his  direction  and  authority ;  but  Matthew's  authority 
must  necessarily  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  means  of  the  diffu- 
sion of  the  Gospel,  as  otherwise  it  is  inexplicable  that  there  does  not 
appear  the  faintest  trace  of  any  opposition  to  it. 

No  definite  objections  can  be  made  against  our  supposition  that 
Matthew  wrote  a  Greek  Gospel  besides  his  Hebrew  one.  A  single 
circumstance,  however,  may  appear  strange,  viz.,  that  Papias,  the 
ancient^  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  whom  we  have  before  men- 
tioned, a  man  who  was  conversant  with  persons  that  had  themselves 
seen  and  heard  our  Lord,  informs  us  that  every  one  endeavoured  to 
translate  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew  as  well  as  he  was  able. 
Thus,  according  to  this  passage,  our  universally-received  Greek 
transformation  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  was  not  commonly  known  in 
Phrygia,  so  that  persons  who  did  not  very  well  understand  Hebrew, 
made  use,  as  well  as  they  could,  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel.  But  the 
circumstance,  that  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  not  yet  cur- 
rent in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Papias,  is  no  proof  at  all  that  it 
was  not  yet  in  existence.  For,  as  Matthew's  work  was  already  dif- 
fused throughout  the  church  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  Greek 
Gospel  of  Matthew  corresponded  with  the  Hebrew  in  every  essential 
point,  it  was  very  natural  that  the  Greek  Gospel  should  be  circula- 
ted in  a  more  dilatory  manner  ;  and  by  some  accident,  it  is  probable, 
it  was  particularly  tardy  in  reaching  Phrygia.  As,  however,  in  the 
west  generally,  very  few  understood  Hebrew,  when  the  Greek  Gospel 
of  Matthew  was  once  procured,  that  only  was  circulated  there,  and 
thus  the  Hebrew  Gospel  was  completely  lost  in  Europe.  In  Pales- 
tine alone,  as  the  Hebrew  was  better  understood,  the  Gospel  in  that 
language  continued  in  use,  though  it  was  encumbered  with  divers 
foreign  additions  by  the  Jewish  Christians. 

Thus  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  fully  con- 
firmed on  historical  grounds,  aside  from  its  position  in  the  collection 
of  the  Gospels.  Kecent  investigators  have  raised  doubts  in  regard 
to  its  genuineness  from  internal  considerations.  They  say,  in  par- 
ticular, that  if  the  statements  of  Matthew,  in  the  character  of  eye- 
witness (for  he  was  one  of  the  twelve  apostles),  be  compared  with 
the  descriptions  of  Mark,  who  does  not  write  as  an  eye-witness,  it 
will  be  evident  that  the  advantage  is  on  the  side  of  the  latter. 
Everything  which  Mark  narrates  is  represented  in  so  graphic  a  man- 


THE   ACTS  OF   THE   APOSTLES. 


li 


ner  that  it  is  plain  he  derived  his  accounts  from  eye-witnesses ; 
while  the  narrative  of  Matthew,  whom  we  are  to  regard  as  himself 
an  eye-witness  in  respect  to  most  of  his  relations,  is  dry,  and  with- 
out the  least  vivacity.  This  remark  is  perfectly  correct.  Com- 
parison of  a  few  passages  will  at  once  show  how  much  more  minute 
and  graphic  are  Mark's  descriptions  than  those  of  Matthew.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  as  to  the  accounts  of  cures.  In  these  Mark 
frequently  describes  the  circumstances  of  the  sick  person  before  and 
after  the  cure  in  so  lively  a  manner  as  to  make  us  imagine  the  scene 
really  before  us  ;  while  Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  describes  the  oc- 
currence only  in  very  general  terms.  Let  a  comparison  be  made  in 
this  view  between  the  following  accounts  which  Matthew  and  Mark 
give  of  the  same  occurrences  : 


MATTH.  viii.  28 — 34. 

"  And  when  he  was  come  to  the  other 
side,  into  the  country  of  the  Gergesenes, 
there  met  him  two  possessed  with  devils, 
coming  out  of  the  tombs,  exceeding  fierce, 
so  that  no  man  might  pass  by  that  way. 
And  behold  they  cried  out  saying,"  &c. 


MARK  v.  1 — 19. 

"And  they  came  over  unto  the  other 
side  of  the  sea,  into  the  country  of  the  Gad- 
arenes.  (This  is  another  reading  for  Ger- 
gesenes.) And  when  he  was  come  out  of 
the  ship,  immediately  there  met  him  out  of 
the  tombs  a  man  with  an  unclean  spirit, 
who  had  his  dwelling  among  the  tombs ; 
and  no  man  could  bind  him,  no,  not  with 
chains,  because  that  he  had  been  often  bound 
with  fetters  and  chains,  and  the  chains  had 
been  plucked  asunder  by  him,  and  the  fetters 
broken  in  pieces;  neither  could  any  man 
tame  him.  And  always,  night  and  day,  he 
was  in  the  mountains,  and  in  the  tombs,  cry- 
ing  and  cutting  himself  with  stones.  But 
when  he  saw  Jesus  afar  off,  he  ran  and 
worshipped  him,  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 
and  said,"  &c. 


Respecting  their  cure,  Matthew  merely 
says  (ver.  32) :  "  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Go.  And  when  they  were  come  out  they 
went  into  the  herd  of  swine,  and  behold  the 
whole  herd  of  swine,"  &c. 


Respecting  his  cure,  Mark  says  (ver.  13 
and  onward) :  "  And  forthwith  Jesus  gave 
them  leave.  And  the  unclean  spirits  went 
out  and  entered  into  the  swine,"  &c.  "  And 
they  (that  were  in  the  city  and  in  the 
country)  went  out  to  see  what  it  was  that 
was  done.  And  they  come  to  Jesus,  and 
see  him  that  was  possessed  with  the  devil, 
and  had  the  legion,  sitting,  and  clothed,  and 
in  his  right  mind:  and  they  were  afraid." 


ix.  18—26. 

20.  "  And  behold  a  woman  which  was 
diseased  with  an  issue  of  blood  twelve  years, 
came  behind  him,  and  plucked  the  hem  of 
his  garment." 


V.  21 — 43. 

25.  "  And  a  certain  woman  which  had  an 
issue  of  blood  twelve  years,  and  had  suffered 
many  things  of  many  physicians,  and  had 
spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was  nothing  bet- 
tered, but  rather  grew  worse,  when  she  had 


Hi  THE  INDIVIDUAL   GOSPELS   AND 

heard  of  Jesus,  came  in  the  press  behind, 
and  touched  his  garment." 

Moreover,  the  whole  account  contained 
in  verses  29 — 33  is  in  Mark  only. 

xiv.  1—12.  vi.  14—20. 

Account  of  the  execution  of  John  the        The  whole  narrative  is  given  in  Mark 
Baptist  by  Herod.  with  much  more  minuteness  and  vivacity. 

Such  a  difference  in  the  style  of  narration  runs  throughout 
Matthew  and  Mark ;  and  it  cannot  well  be  denied  that  at  first 
view  there  is  something  surprising  in  it.  But  careful  examination 
of  the  object  of  the  two  Gospels  plainly  shows  whence  this  different 
manner  of  narration  in  Matthew  and  Mark  takes  its  rise,  and  thus 
does  away  with  all  the  inferences  which  have  been  deduced  there- 
from in  opposition  to  the  apostolic  origin  of  Matthew.  The  reason 
why  Mark  describes  the  outward  relations  of  our  Lord's  life  in  so 
vivid  and  graphic  a  manner  is,  that  it  was  his  special  design  to  por- 
tray Christ's  performance  of  the  outward  functions  of  his  office. 
Hence,  all  which  related  to  that,  he  details  very  carefully  ;  while 
whatever  did  not  pertain  thereto,  he  either  entirely  omits,  as,  e.  </., 
the  history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus,  or  communicates  very  briefly, 
as,  e.  <7.,many  of  our  Lord's  larger  discourses.  Matthew,  on  the  con- 
trary, makes  it  his  chief  object  to  communicate  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses. He  commonly  makes  use  of  events  only  as  points  of  sup- 
port for  the  discourses  ;  to  which  he,  like  John,  directs  special 
attention.  If  it  be  considered,  moreover,  that  the  graphic  nature 
of  style  is,  in  great  part,  owing  to  peculiar  talent,  such  as  is  not  be- 
stowed alike  on  all  men,  and  such  as  was  by  no  means  requisite  in 
every  one  of  the  apostles,  there  remains  not  a  shadow  of  reason,  why 
the  want  of  vivacity,  which  is  certainly  exhibited  in  Matthew's 
Gospel,  should  become  a  motive  for  denying  its  genuineness.  In 
truth,  moreover,  there  is  no  period  at  which  a  forgery  of  the  Gospel 
in  Matthew's  name  is  even  conceivable.  For  it  is  demonstrable 
from  the  book  itself  that  it  must  have  been  composed  a  few  years 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  hence  about  sixty-six 
years  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  Now  we  find  Matthew  in  use  in  the 
church  before  the  close  of  the  same  century,  at  a  time  when  John 
the  Evangelist  had  but  just  died,  and  many  disciples  of  the  apostles 
were  living  and  labouring  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  How  was  it 
possible,  in  such  circumstances,  to  introduce  a  work  forged  in  the 
name  of  Matthew  into  so  general  currency,  that  not  the  very  slight- 
est opposition  should  ever  have  been  raised  against  it  ? 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  have  been  inferred  that  the  gen- 
uineness of  Mark  is  not  at  all  disputed.  His  graphic,  li vely  manner 
has  even  been  made  to  afford  occasion  for  assailing  the  genuineness 
of  Matthew.  Nor,  in  truth,  was  there  in  ancient  times  the  least 


THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES.  llii 

opposition  to  Mark's  Gospel.  It  was  known  to  Papias  of  Hierapolis, 
i.  e.,  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  first  century,  and  there  is  an  un- 
broken chain  of  evidence  in  its  favour  since  that  time.  It  is  true, 
Mark's  work  was,  in  all  probability,  written  at  Home,  at  that  time 
the  capital  of  the  known  world,  and  therefore  a  fixed  and  sure  tra- 
dition as  to  the  author  of  the  work  might, be  formed  at  once,  and 
would  easily  diffuse  itself  everywhere  abroad.  Still,  however,  there 
is  one  thing  which  appears  very  remarkable  in  regard  to  the  rapid 
diffusion  and  reception  of  Mark,  viz.,  that  it  was  a  production  whose 
author  was  not  an  apostle.  John  Mark,  frequently  called  Mark 
only,  was  the  son  of  a  certain  Mary  who  had  a  house  in  Jerusalem 
(Acts  xii.  12).  Mark  himself,  as  we  are  told  in  the  Acts  (xii.  25  ; 
xiii.  5  ;  xv.  36  seq.),  at  first  accompanied  the  Apostle  Paul  in 
his  travels  for  the  dissemination  of  Christianity.  He  afterwards 
attached  himself  to  his  kinsman  Barnabas.  At  a  later  period,  how- 
ever, we  find  him  again  in  Paul's  company  (2  Tim.  iv.  11).  Ac- 
cording to  the  fathers,  he  was  also,  for  a  considerable  time,  closely 
connected  with  Peter,  and  was  interpreter  to  the  latter  when  he 
preached  among  the  Greeks.  He  invariably,  however,  occupied  a 
dependent  situation,  and  on  this  account  it  is  impossible  that  his 
name  alone  should  have  procured  his  Gospel  an  introduction  into 
the  church.  But,  as  has  been  already  mentioned,  Mark  did  not 
write  without  apostolic  authority.  On  the  contrary,  he  ivas  under 
the  direction  of  the  Apostle  Peter.  This  is  stated  by  the  entire 
series  of  church-fathers  during  the  second  and  third  centuries,  with 
perfect  unanimity  in  the  main  ;  and  the  statement  is  corroborated 
by  the  case  of  Luke,  which  was  exactly  similar.  On  this  account, 
the  Gospel  of  Mark  was  considered  as  originating  with  Peter,  and 
such  individuals  as  were  particularly  attached  to  this  apostle  used 
Mark  in  preference  to  all  others.  Unfortunately,  however,  we  have 
no  minute  accounts  as  to  this  matter,  and  hence  do  not  know 
whether  these  individuals  corrupted  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  as  the 
Jewish  Christians  did  that  of  Matthew,  or  not.  It  is  possible,  how- 
ever, that  the  so-called  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  was  a  corruption  of 
Ma  rk,  though  the  fragments  we  have  of  it  are  not  sufficient  to  en- 
able us  to  form  a  certain  opinion  on  this  point. 

As  to  Luke,  we  have  more  clear  and  certain  evidence  in  this 
respect.  We  know  that  that  sect  which  carried  the  sentiments  of 
Paul  to  an  erroneous  extreme,  the  Marcionites,  used  only  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke,  although  Marcion  was  very  well  acquainted  with  the 
other  Gospels,  and  regarded  them  as  genuine.  They  had,  however, 
altered  Luke  in  conformity  with  their  opinions,  and  thus  formed,  as 
it  were,  a  new  Gospel  out  of  it,  which,  notwithstanding,  still  retained 
much  resemblance  to  the  original.  The  reason  why  the  Marcionites 
selected  Luke  was,  that  this  Gospel  was  written  under  the  direction 


liv  THE   INDIVIDUAL   GOSPELS  AND 

of  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  alone,  in  their  opinion,  was  a  genuine  apos- 
tle of  our  Lord.  Luke,  as  we  know  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
had  travelled  ahout  with  the  apostle  Paul  for  a  long  time,  and,  in 
particular,  had  also  accompanied  him  to  Home.  This  is  clear  from 
the  final  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Connecting  this  fact 
with  the  conclusion  of  the  work,  it  is  perfectly  evident  when  the 
Evangelist  finished  it.  According  to  the  last  chapter,  Paul  was  two 
years  in  confinement  at  Eome.  Here  Luke  breaks  off,  without  men- 
tioning the  issue  of  his  trial.  Had  this  been  concluded,  should  we 
not,  of  course,  have  had  an  account  of  the  emperor's  decision  respect- 
ing the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ?  It  can  be  made  very  proba- 
ble, by  circumstances  deduced  from  another  quarter,  that  Paul  was 
liberated  from  his  first  imprisonment  at  Kome,  and  did  not  suffer  as 
a  martyr  till  he  had  been  a  second  time  placed  in  bonds.  Luke, 
however,  abruptly  breaks  off  hi  the  midst  of  his  narrative.  Now,  as 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  only  the  second  part  of  Luke's  work, 
the  Gospel  being  the  first  (compare  Luke  i.  1  with  Acts  i.  1),  the 
latter  cannot  have  been  written  subsequently  ;  and  probably,  when 
Paul's  death  was  apprehended,  Luke  wrote  down  the  accounts  he 
had  received  from  him  or  through  him,  in  order  to  secure  them  to 
posterity.  Then  the  apostle,  who  was  still  living,  attested  the 
purity  and  accuracy  of  the  work,  and  from  Kome,  the  great  central 
point  of  the  religious,  as  well  as  the  political  world,  it  speedily  made 
its  way  into  the  churches,  in  every  province  of  the  vast  Roman  em- 
pire. Thus,  it  was  not  Luke's  name  which  procured  for  this  Gospel 
its  currency  in  the  church,  but  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
Without  this,  the  work  of  Luke,  with  its  two  divisions,  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts,  would  have  been  the  less  likely  to  obtain  general 
credit,  because  it  purports  to  be  a  mere  private  production,  addressed 
to  a  certain  Theophilus.  It  is,  indeed,  very  probable,  that  this 
Theophilus  was  a  man  of  note,  who  was  either  already  a  member  of 
the  church,  or  at  least  well-disposed  towards  it ;  but  still  he  was 
only  a  private  man,  whose  name  could  have  no  weight  with  the 
whole  church.  He  had,  probably,  already  perused  divers  accounts 
concerning  Christ,  and  the  formation  of  the  primitive  churches, 
which,  however,  were  not  duly  authentic  and  certain  ;  and  for  this 
reason,  Luke  determined  to  compose  for  his  use  an  authoritative 
history  of  the  important  events  in  our  Lord's  life,  and  of  the  founda- 
tion of  the  churches.  (Comp.  Luke  i.  1 — 4.)  Under  these  circum- 
stances, it  is  not  astonishing  that,  in  the  primitive  church,  there  was 
no  opposition  either  to  Luke's  Gospel,  or  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles.1 
The  many  and  close  relations  of  the  writer,  together  with  the  apos- 

1  So  far  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  speaks  of  the  circumstances  of  Paul,  it  has  a  per- 
fect correspondence  with  Paul's  Epistles,  as  the  latter  have  with  the  former.  See  this 
feet  more  fully  developed  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  this  treatise. 


THE   ACTS   OF   THE   APOSTLES.  Iv 

tolic  authority  in  his  behalf,  were  such  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
work,  that  not  a  single  valid  suspicion  could  arise  respecting  its 
genuineness. 

Lastly,  The  circumstances  in  regard  to  the  Gospel  of  John  are 
particularly  calculated  to  place  its  genuineness  beyond  dispute  ;  for 
John  the  Evangelist  lived  much  longer  than  any  of  the  other  apos- 
.  ties.  So  far  as  we  know,  none  of  the  others  were  alive  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  the  Koman  emperor,  in  the  year 
70  A.D.  John,  however,  survived  it  nearly  thirty  years,  dying  about 
the  close  of  the  first  century,  under  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Doini- 
tian.  Hence,  many  Christians  who  had  heard  of  our  Lord's  farewell 
words  to  him  (John  xxi.  22,  23),  believed  that  John  would  not  die, 
an  idea  which  the  Evangelist  himself  declares  erroneous.  This  be- 
loved disciple  of  our  Lord,  during  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  as  we 
know  from  testimonies  on  which  perfect  reliance  may  be  placed, 
lived  at  Ephesus,  in  Asia  Minor,  where  the  Apostle  Paul  had  found- 
ed a  flourishing  church.  The  importance  of  this  church,  about  the 
year  64  or  75  A.D.,  is  evinced  by  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians ; 
and  subsequently  it  was  very  much  enlarged.  It  was  in  this  subse- 
quent period  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel.  This  is  clear,  first,  from 
a  comparison  of  the  Gospel  with  the  Kevelation.  This  last  work 
was  written  by  John  at  an  earlier  period,  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  John's  style  in  this  prophetic  composition  is  not  so 
thoroughly  easy  as  we  find  it  at  a  later  period  in  the  Gospel,  which 
he  must  have  written  after  longer  intercourse  with  native  Greeks. 
Again,  John  plainly  had  the  three  other  Gospels  before  him  when 
he  wrote  ;  for  he  omits  all  which  they  had  described  with  sufficient 
minuteness,  e.  g.,  the  institution  of  the  holy  supper,  and  only  relates 
that  which  was  new  respecting  the  life  of  his  Lord  and  Master. 
Hence,  these  must  have  been  already  composed,  and  also  so  gener- 
ally diffused,  that  John  could  presume  them  universally  known  in 
the  church.  Moreover,  the  persons  to  whom  John's  work  has  spe- 
cial reference,  viz.,  certain  Gnostics,  did  not  attain  importance  till 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  and  most  of  the  apostles  had  left  this 
world.  Now,  if  we  duly  consider  all  these  circumstances,  it  will  be 
even  more  incredible  in  regard  to  John's  Gospel  than  any  other,  that 
it  should  have  been  forged  in  his  name.  From  his  being  the  sole 
surviving  apostle,  innumerable  eyes  were  upon  him  and  his  move- 
ments. He  lived  and  laboured  in  one  of  the  chief  cities  of  the  known 
world,  in  which  was  a  large  church,  and  the  vicinity  of  which  was 
wholly  peopled  with  Christians.  We  have  an  epistle  of  Pliny,  a 
distinguished  Koman  officer  of  that  region,  written  only  a  few  years 
after  the  death  of  John  the  Evangelist,  in  which  he  describes  the 
vast  increase  of  the  Christians  in  Asia  Minor,  and  lays  before  the 
emperor  Trajan  (the  successor  of  the  emperor  in  whose  reign  John's 


Ivi  THE  INDIVIDUAL   GOSPELS  AND 

death  took  place)  measures  for  preventing  the  further  extension  of 
their  tenets.  Now,  how  was  it  possible  that  in  this  state  of  things 
a  work  could  he  forged  in  John's  name  ;  or,  supposing  even  that  one 
might  have  heen  (though  history  says  nothing  of  any  such  imposi- 
tion under  the  name  of  John),1  how  is  it  conceivable  that  no  opposi- 
tion should  have  been  made  thereto,  when  many  thousands  were 
acquainted  with  John,  and  must  have  known  exactly  what  he  wrote, 
and  what  he  did  not  ?  Of  such  opposition,  however,  there  is  no- 
where  the  slightest  trace.  Not  merely  all  teachers  of  the  orthodox 
church,  in  all  parts  of  the  wide  Koman  empire,  but  also  all  heretics 
of  the  most  various  sects,  make  use  of  the  work  as  a  sacred  valuable 
legacy  bequeathed  to  the  church  by  the  beloved  disciple  ;  and  the 
few  heretics  who  make  no  use  of  it,  as,  e.  g.,  Marcion,  still  evince 
acquaintance  with  it,  and  regard  it  as  a  genuine  work  of  John's,  but 
are  impudent  enough  to  deny  that  John  himself  had  a  correct 
knowledge  of  the  Gospel,  because  he  was  too  much  of  a  Jew. 
Whether,  as  was  the  case  with  the  other  Gospels,  John's  also  was 
corrupted  by  the  heretics,  who  felt  that  they  were  specially  aimed 
at  in  it,  is  uncertain.  The  Gnostics,  with  the  exception  of  Marcion 
(who,  however,  as  has  been  already  mentioned,  is  only  improperly 
reckoned  among  the  Gnostics),  made  most  frequent  use  of  John,  as 
in  their  opinion  specially  favouring  their  spiritual  ideas.  We  do 
not  learn,  however,  that  there  existed  in  ancient  times  any  Gospel 
of  John  corrupted  by  the  Gnostics,  as  Luke's  Gospel  was  mutilated 
by  Marcion.  In  modern  times,  it  is  true,  a  Gospel  of  John  thus 
disfigured  has  come  to  public  knowledge  ;  but  the  alterations  in  it 
originated  at  a  late  period  in  the  middle  ages. 

The  doubts  respecting  the  genuineness  of  John's  Gospel  which 
have,  nevertheless,  been  proposed  in  recent  times,  took  their  rise, 
like  those  in  regard  to  Matthew,  solely  from  its  internal  character. 
When  once  doubts  were  thus  occasioned,  endeavours  were  made  to 
sustain  them  on  historical  grounds  likewise.  These,  however,  are 
of  little  weight,"  from  the  firmness  of  the  foundation  on  which  the 
Gospel  rests.  It  was  with  John  much  as  with  Matthew,  in  regard 
to  those  characteristics  which  excited  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  book.  It  was  correctly  remarked,  that  John  gives  a  different 
representation  of  our  Lord  from  that  presented  by  the  first  three 
Evangelists.  In  his  Gospel,  Christ's  actions  and  discourses  appear, 

1  There  does  exist  in  MS.,  it  is  true,  a  second  apocalypse  under  John's  name ;  but 
this  production  appears  to  belong  to  a  much  later  period.     There  is  also  an  apostolic 
history  of  older  date,  in  which,  however,  John  is  only  mentioned  along  with  others ; 
it  is  not  ascribed  to  him. 

2  The  most  weighty  opponent  of  the  genuineness  of  John  has  given  the  excellent  ex- 
ample of  publicly  acknowledging  that  he  has  become  convinced  of  the  genuineness  of 
this  jewel  of  the  church,  and  retracts  his  doubts.     May  this  example  find  numerous 
imitators  I 


THE   ACTS   OF  THE  APOSTLES.  Ivii 

as  it  were,  transfigured  and  spiritualized,  while  in  the  other  Evan- 
gelists they  appear  in  a  costume  more  or  less  Jewish  and  national. 
Now,  as  it  is  not  conceivable,  it  is  said,  that  the  same  person  should 
be  so  differently  represented,  and  John,  the  beloved  disciple  of  our 
Lord,  would  certainly  not  have  portrayed  his  Master  as  other  than 
he  really  was,  while  the  description  of  the  actions  of  Jesus  (who 
appeared  as  a  Jew  among  Jews,  and  in  behalf  of  Jews),  given  in 
the  accounts  of  the  first  three  Evangelists,  is  much  more  conform- 
able to  probability,  the  Gospel  which  bears  John's  name  must  be 
of  later  origin.  But  here,  as  in  regard  to  Matthew,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, that  from  a  perfectly  correct  remark  false  conclusions  have 
been  deduced.  It  is  indeed  true  that  John  exhibits  the  Saviour  in 
a  far  more  spiritual  and  glorified  character  than  the  first  three 
Evangelists  ;  but  this  proves  nothing,  except  that  John  was  the 
most  spiritual  of  the  Evangelists.  The  same  individual  may  be  re- 
garded and  described  very  differently  by  different  persons.  Of  this 
truth  we  have  a  remarkable  example  in  a  great  character  of  Grecian 
antiquity.  Socrates  is  represented  to  our  view  in  his  actions  and 
discourses  by  two  of  his  confidential  pupils,  Xenophon  and  Plato. 
And  how  entirely  different  is  the  description  given  of  him  by  these 
two  writers  !  In  fact,  these  biographers  may  be  said  to  sustain 
very  much  such  a  mutual  relation  as  that  of  John  and  the  first 
Evangelists.  While  Xenophon  paid  attention  principally  to  the 
external  acts  of  Socrates,  Plato  describes  his  spiritual  character- 
istics. Now,  if  it  was  possible  to  represent  a  common  human  being 
of  eminence  in  two  very  different  lights,  without  doing  violence  to 
truth,  how  much  rather  might  it  be  so  in  regard  to  one  who  was 
greater  than  Solomon,  or  than  Socrates  and  his  biographers.  He 
who  lived  a  purely  heavenly  life  on  earth,  and  spake  words  of  eter- 
nal truth,  could  not  but  be  very  variously  described,  according  to  the 
characteristics  of  the  human  soul  which  received  the  rays  of  light 
proceeding  from  him.  Each  soul  reflected  his  image  according  to 
its  own  profundity  and  compass,  and  yet  each  might  be  right.  It 
was  for  this  reason  that  more  than  one  Gospel  was  included  in  the 
collection  of  the  sacred  writings,  since  only  the  presentation  of  dif- 
ferent portraitures  together  could  prevent  a  partial  view  of  our 
Saviour's  character.  As  it  is  only  from  connection  of  the  accounts 
of  Xenophon  and  Plato  that  we  can  obtain  a  complete  picture  of 
Socrates,  so  we  cannot  comprehend  the  life  of  our  Lord,  which 
affords  so  many  different  aspects,  without  uniting  the  peculiar  traits 
scattered  in  all  the  four  Gospels  into  one  general  portraiture.  With 
all  the  difference  of  representation  observable  in  the  Evangelists, 
there  are  still  resemblances  and  affinities  enough  to  make  it  evident 
that  they  all  had  the  same  great  personage  in  view.  As  John  re- 
lates narratives  of  cures  exactly  like  those  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and 


Iviii  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

Luke,  so  the  Gospels  of  the  latter  contain  passages  which,  in  eleva- 
tion, depth,  and  richness  of  thought,  are  not  inferior  to  our  Lord's 
discourses  in  John,  and  indeed  resemble  them  in.  phraseology. 
Among  these  i^  the  lofty  and  astonishingly  beautiful  passage, 
Matth.  xi.  25 — 30  : — "  I  thank  thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  pru- 
dent, and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even  so,  Father,  for  so 
it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight.  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of 
my  Father  ;  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father  ;  neither 
knoweth  any  man  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  will  reveal  him.  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you 
and  learn  of  me  ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,  and  ye  shall 
find  rest  unto  your  souls.  For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is 
light."  He  from  whose  mouth  such  language  proceeded  might  cer- 
tainly be  represented  in  such  an  aspect  as  John  has  given  to  Jesus, 
if  the  description  were  undertaken  by  one  in  some  measure  capable 
of  appreciating  a  character  of  this  nature ;  and  th,at  John  was  thus- 
capable  is  sufficiently  clear  from  his  Epistles. 

If,  therefore,  we  look  at  the  Gospels  as  a  collection,  or  consider 
each  separately,  we  cannot  but  say  that  they  are  more  strongly 
accredited  and  sustained  by  external  and  internal  proofs  than  any 
other  work  of  antiquity.  Few  writings  have  such  ancient  testi- 
monies in  their  favour,  reaching  back  to  the  time  of  the  authors ; 
none  have  so  many  of  them,  so  totally  distinct,  so  corroborative  of 
each  other.  While,  then,  the  chief  argument  in  behalf  of  the  Scrip- 
tures generally,  and  of  the  Gospels  in  particular,  is  the  witness  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  perceived  in  his  heart  by  every  believer  as  he  pe- 
ruses the  Scriptures  (a  point  on  which  we  shall  enlarge  at  the  close 
of  our  treatise)  ;  still,  the  possibility  of  proving  on  historical 
grounds  the  genuineness  and  primitive  character  of  the  Gospels  is  a 
great  additional  cause  of  gratitude,  inasmuch  as  it  removes  occa- 
sions of  distrust,  particularly  from  wpak  and  doubting  minds,  and 
affords  motives  for  the  confirmation  of  their  faith. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

ALONG  with  the  collection  of  the  Gospels,  there  existed  at  an 
early  period  of  the  church,  as  was  related  above,1  a  collection  of 
Paul's  Epistles  called  the  Apostle.  In  the  lives  of  Irenaeus,  Tertul- 

1  Comp.  Chap  L 


THE   PAULINE  EPISTLES.  llX 

lian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  were  all  acquainted  with  and 
used  it,  this  collection  contained  thirteen  Epistles,  viz.  the  Epistle 
to  the  Komans,  two  to  the  Corinthians,  those  to  the  Galatians, 
Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Colossians,  two  to  the  Thessalonians, 
two  to  Timothy,  and  those  to  Titus  and  Philemon.  The  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  was  not  inserted  in  this  collection,  because  opinions 
were  not  united  as  to  its  origin.  (See  Chap.  vi.  below).  Half  a 
century  before  the  time  of  the  fathers  just  mentioned,  we  find  a  col- 
lection of  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  hands  of  Marcion.  that  extrava- 
gant reverer  of  tie  Apostle  Paul.  He  was  born  in  Asia  Minor, 
where,  as  is  well  known,  the  Apostle  Paul  had  long  lived  and 
laboured,  and  was  highly  reverenced.  Thence  Marcion  went  to 
Home,  carrying  with  him  the  collection  of  Pauline  Epistles  which  he 
had  made  use  of  in  Asia.  This,  however,  contained  but  ten 
Epistles  ;  there  were  wanting  the  three  commonly  termed  pastoral 
letters,  viz.,  the  two  to  Timothy  and  that  to  Titus  ;  called  pastoral 
letters,  because  in  them  Paul  gives  directions  to  spiritual  pastors  in 
regard  to  the  suitable  performance  of  their  official  duties.  The 
small  Epistle  to  Philemon  was  known  to  him,  because  it  stood  in 
close  connexion  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  ;  but  the  three 
pastoral  letters  seem  to  have  been  diffused  but  slowly,  as  indepen- 
dent private  productions,  and  hence,  also,  not  to  have  been  inserted 
in  the  original  collection.  How  the  collection  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  have  it,  originated,  is  un- 
known, and  has  riot  yet  been  satisfactorily  accounted  for  by  any 
conjecture.1  For  the  supposition  that,  like  the  collection  of  the 
Gospels,  it  originated  in  different  places  at  once,  merely  by  the 
gradual  transmission  thither  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  as  fast  as  they 
were  composed,  is  forbidden  by  the  circumstance  that,  as  can  be 
proved,  they  are  not  arranged  in  the  order  of  their  composition. 
The  collection  cannot,  however,  have  been  accidentally  formed  ;  for 
it  is  clear  that  a  certain  plan  has  been  followed.  At  the  beginning 
are  placed  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Corinthians,  distinguish- 
ed for  their  length  and  internal  importance  ;  then  follows  a  letter  to 
several  churches  in  a  whole  province,  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ; 
then  the  smaller  Epistles  to  churches  in  particular  cities,  to  the 
Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  and  Thessalonians  ;  lastly,  come 
the  Epistles  to  private  persons.  Moreover,  had  the  collection  of 
them  been  left  to  accident,  sometimes  one  arrangement  would  have 
been  adopted  and  sometimes  another,  which  is  not  the  case,  the 
order  having  been  the  same  that  we  now  observe,  as  far  back  as  the 

1  We  find  very  few  traces  of  a  different  arrangement  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul:  a  dif- 
ferent one,  however,  is  followed  in  an  old  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
probably  pertaining  to  the  church  at  Rome.  It  is  called  Jtfwatori's  Catalogue,  from  an 
Italian  abbot  of  that  name  who  discovered  the  MSS.  which  contained  it. 


IX  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

second  century.  As,  therefore,  the  order  of  the  Epistles  was  evi- 
dently the  work  of  design,  and  its  general  reception  throughout  the 
church  indicates  that  it  proceeded  from  some  authoritative  source, 
the  most  reasonable  supposition  is,  that  the  Apostle  Paul  himself 
made  the  collection.  During  the  second  imprisonment  at  Rome,  to 
which,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  it  is  highly  probable  that  the 
apostle  was  subjected,  he  may  have  collected  together  the  ten 
Epistles,  as  being  the  principal  ones  of  a  doctrinal  nature  which  he 
had  as  yet  written,  in  order  to  bequeath  them  as  a  legacy  to  the 
church.  It  was  in  this  original  form  that  Marcion  possessed  the 
collection.1  After  the  collection  was  made  up,  near  the  close  of  Jiis 
life,  Paul  wrote  the  three  pastoral  letters,  which  were  afterwards 
added  to  the  original  collection,  and  naturally  placed  last.  By  ac- 
cident Marcion  had  not  become  acquainted  with  these  letters,  and 
therefore  retained  the  most  ancient  form  of  the  collection  of  Paul's 
Epistles.  A  very  weighty  testimony  in  favour  of  this  view  is  pre- 
sented in  the  second  Epistle  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  who,  at  near  the 
conclusion  of  his  letter,  says  :  "  And!  account  that  the  long-suffer- 
ing of  our  Lord  is  salvation  ;  even  as  our  beloved  brother  Paul, 
also,  according  to  the  wisdom  given  unto  him,  hath  written  unto 
you  ;  as  also  in  all  (his)  Epistles,  speaking  in  them  of  these  things  ; 
in  which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  which  they  that  are 
unlearned  and  unstable  wrest,"  &c.  (2  Pet.  iii.  15,  16).  According 
to  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  (i.  1,  comp.  2  Pet.  iii.  1),  Peter  wrote  to 
the  Christians  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  and  other  provinces  of  Asia 
Minor,  to  which  also  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians, 
and  Colossians  are  directed.  Peter,  therefore,  might  presume  that 
his  readers  were  acquainted  with  these.  The  expression  all  (his) 
Epistles,  however,  clearly  indicate  a  collection  of  Epistles.  Other- 
wise, there  is  something  of  indefiniteness  in  it.  Paul,  no  doubt, 
wrote  more  Epistles  during  his  life  than  we  now  possess.  But  most 
of  his  Epistles  were  not  exactly  adapted  for  general  diffusion.  The 
expression,  all  (his)  Epistles,  must  therefore  have  reference  to  a  col- 
lection of  the  apostle's  letters,  which  could  be  read  through.  If  it 
be  also  considered  that  Peter  was  in  Paul's  company  in  Rome,  and 
that  consequently  he  would  naturally  have  had  acquaintance  with 
the  collection  of  his  Epistles,  it  will  be  plain  that  this  passage  is 
hardly  intelligible,  except  on  the  supposition  that  a  collection  of 
Paul's  Epistles  was  already  in  existence.5  It  is  true  the  genuine- 

1  According  to  the  account  of  Epiphanius,  it  is  true,  the  order  of  the  ten  Epistles  in 
Marcion's  Canon  was  different  from  that  in  ours,  viz.,  Galatians,  Corinthians,  Romans, 
Thessalonians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philemon,  and  Philippians.    If  this  statement  be 
credited,  it  must  be  allowed  that  Marcion's  collection  originated  independently  of  ours. 

2  Some  may  think  that  too  much  is  inferred  by  the  author  from  Peter's  expression, 
and,  indeed,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  to  say  that  Peter's  language  is  hardly  intelligible, 
except  on  the  supposition  of  an  existing  collection  of  Paul's  Epistles,  is  somewhat  ex- 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES.  Ixi 

ness  of  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  now  disputed,  and  certainly 
much  that  is  of  an  imposing  nature  can  be  alleged  against  it.  Still, 
however,  all  that  can  be  said  does  not,  I  am  convinced,  demonstrate 
its  spuriousness,  while  there  is  certainly  much  evidence  of  its  genu- 
ineness. At  any  rate,  this  mention  of  a  collection  of  Paul's  Epistles 
should  not  be  urged  against  the  genuineness  of  the  second  Epistle 
of  Peter,  as  all  acknowledge  that  nothing  certain  is  known  in  regard 
to  the  formation  of  this  collection.  But  on  these  points  we  will 
speak  more  at  large  hereafter. 

If  it  be  admitted,  however,  that  Paul  himself  made  the  collec- 
tion of  his  Epistles,  or  at  least,  caused  it  to  be  made  at  Eome  under 
his  direction,  we  have  then  an  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  in  regard 
to  the  genuineness  of  this  collection,  as  in  regard  to  that  of  the 
Gospels,  not  the  slightest  doubt  was  ever  expressed.  Members  of  the 
Catholic  church  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  as  also  of  the  various  sects, 
make  use  of  the  collection  and  of  the  individual  Epistles,  without 
allowing  themselves  to  intimate  the  smallest  doubt  in  regard  to 
them.  Now,  this  undeniable  fact  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the 
supposition  that  all  or  any  Epistles  in  the  collection  are  spurious. 
Indeed,  the  first  supposition,  that  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul  are  spu- 
rious, has  never  been  maintained,  and  never  can  be,  except  in  de- 
spite of  all  history.  But  even  the  idea  that  one  or  two  spurious, 
forged  Epistles  may  have  obtained  a  place  in  the  collection,  is 
hardly  to  be  reconciled  with  the  universal  acknowledgment  of  all 
the  Epistles  in  the  church  of  ancient  times.  Consider  only,  how 
universally  Paul  was  known  in  the  early  church  !  From  Spain 
(which  in  all  probability  he  visited),  he  had  travelled  about  through 
Italy  and  all  Greece  to  the  remotest  countries  of  Asia  Minor,  Syria, 
and  Arabia  ;  he  had  resided  for  years  in  some  of  the  large  cities  of 
the  then  known  world,  in  Rome,  Corinth,  Thessalonica,  Ephesus, 
Antioch,  Csesarea,  Jerusalem  ;  he  had  everywhere  founded  numer- 
ous churches,  and  maintained  the  most  active  intercourse  with  them. 
How,  then,  when  he  was  so  well  known,  could  a  work  be  forged  in 
his  name,  with  any  prospect  of  its  being  generally  acknowledged  ? 
The  impossibility  of  this  occurrence  is  the  more  evident,  from  the 
fact  that  all  Paul's  Epistles  are  addressed  to  important  churches, 
or  to  persons  living  in  well-known  places.  If  those  who  received 
the  Epistles  were  not  always  designated,  then  it  might  be  supposed 

travagant.  Our  English  translation,  by  inserting  the  word  his  in  the  phraseology  of 
Peter,  has  somewhat  modified  the  sense  of  the  original,  and  weakened  the  force  of  Ols- 
hausen's  remarks.  The  Greek  expression  is,  h>  irdvaic  T^S  iKiaTohalf,  i.  e.,  perhaps,  in 
all  the  Epistles.  Now,  though  it  would  give  an  intelligible  sense  to  these  words  to  sup- 
pose that  Peter  meant  to  make  his  observation  concerning  Paul's  Epistles  generally,  of 
which  he  presumed  some  might,  and  some  might  not,  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
those  to  whom  he  wrote ;  still,  it  can  hardly  be  disputed,  that  his  phraseology  becomes 
much  more  natural,  if  we  suppose  a  current  collection  of  the  Epistles. — T. 


THE  PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

that  some  spurious  ones  obtained  general  circulation.  No  one,  per- 
haps, could  then  say  with  certainty,  whether  Paul  wrote  such  a 
particular  Epistle  or  not ;  for  it  is  not  conceivable  that  Paul  should 
at  once  have  told  every  body  he  knew  how  many  Epistles  he  had 
written  ;  and  thus  one  might  be  personally  acquainted  with  Paul, 
and  still  be  deceived  by  an  artfully-contrived  Epistle.  But  take 
the  case  as  it  is.  Were  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  against 
which,  as  we  shall  see,  objections  have  been  raised,  really  spurious, 
forged  in  Paul's  name,  we  readily  admit  that  it  might  have  been 
received  as  genuine  in  the  whole  church  beside,  for  it  is  as  like 
Paul's  Epistles  as  one  egg  is  like  another  ;  but  could  it  have  been 
acknowledged  as  genuine  in  Ephesus  itself,  and  the  Asiatic  churches 
connected  with  the  Ephesians  ?  Can  we  suppose  that  the  Ephe- 
sians had  so  little  regard  for  the  great  founder  of  their  church,  that 
they  did  not  even  know  whether  their  beloved  preacher  had  or  had 
not  written  them  a  letter  while  in  bonds  ?  And  can  they  have  been 
so  totally  wanting  in  sensibility  to  friendship  and  love,  as  not  to 
preserve  the  apostle's  communication,  when  every  man,  at  all  sus- 
ceptible of  emotions  of  friendship,  is  anxious  to  preserve  what  has 
been  traced  by  a  beloved  hand  ?  It  is  hence  plain,  that  a  spurious 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  must  have  been  known  in  Ephesus  as 
what  it  really  was,  a  forged  production  ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  sup- 
pose, that  if  the  Epistle  had  been  disputed  by  any  considerable 
church,  and  particularly  by  the  very  one  to  which  it  purported  to 
have  been  sent,  the  opposition  should  have  been  so  completely  sup- 
pressed. The  declaration  of  the  Ephesian  churcii  that  they  had  re- 
ceived no  such  Epistle,  that  they  had  not  the  original  in  their 
archives,  would  have  been  sufficient  to  destroy  its  credit. 

To  this  it  is  added,  that  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul  go  beyond  ge- 
neral expressions,  such  as  may  be  easily  invented  ;  that  they  exhi- 
bit a  definite  concrete1  purport,  which  has  reference  to  the  particular 
wants  of  each  church,  and  its  manifestations  as  to  Christian  life. 
Such  representations  of  actual  facts,  in  regard  to  the  ancient 
churches,  can  have  proceeded  only  from  immediate  contact  with 
them,  and  consequently  certify  us  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  With  all  that  is  of  a  special  nature,  however,  in  each 
particular  Epistle  of  Paul,  there  is  observable,  in  all  together,  a 
uniformity  of  style,  and  a  unity  in  doctrinal  ideas,  which  wholly 
prevents  suspicion  respecting  the  genuineness  of  the  epistolary  col- 
lection. For  the  usual  reason  of  forging  writings  in  the  name  of 
another  is,  that  the  forger  wishes  to  give  currency  to  a  favourite 

1  This  term,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  here  used,  is  borrowed  from  logic.  In  that 
science,  it  is  known,  abstract  and  concrete  terms  are  contra-distinguished.  An  abstract 
term  is  one  signifying  some  attribute,  without  reference  to  any  particular  subject ;  a  con- 
crete term  designates  both  the  attribute  and  the  subject  to  which  it  belongs. — T. 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

idea  under  some  celebrated  name.  In  no  Epistle,  however,  is  there 
any  prominent  idea  which  is  remote  from  the  circle  of  Pauline  doc- 
trine, and  seems  to  be  a  foreign  idea  clothed  with  the  costume  of 
Paul's  style.  We  rather  find  every  where  the  same  main  thoughts 
which  actuated  the  life  of  Paul,  running  through  the  entire  collec- 
tion, and  giving  their  stamp  to  the  whole. 

The  principal  evidence,  however,  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Paul- 
ine Epistles,  regarded  in  a  historical  light,  is  the  circumstance,  that 
we  can  assign  to  the  Epistles  their  exact  places  in  the  life  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  by  following  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Thus  are  they 
most  fully  and  firmly  bound  one  to  another,  and  all  to  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  This  arrangement  of  the  individual  Epistles  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  thread  of  Paul's  life,  is  effected  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  show  in  chronological  order  the  occasions  of  their  composi- 
tion, and  their  strict  relations  to  his  known  movements. 

Paul,  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  who,  as  is  well  known, 
was  at  first  named  Saul,  was  a  native  Jew  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
and  was  born  in  Tarsus  in  Cilicia.  In  order  to  perfect  himself  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  law  of  his  native  country,  he  early  betook  him- 
self to  Jerusalem,  where  he  was  taught  by  the  celebrated  Gamaliel. 
His  zeal  for  the  hereditary  observances  of  his  countrymen  caused 
him  to  persecute  the  Christians,  as  soon  as  he  had  obtained  knowl- 
edge of  them,  with  all  the  vehemence  of  his  fiery  nature.  At  the 
death  of  Stephen,  the  first  Christian  martyr,  he  was  busy  keeping 
the  clothes  of  his  murderers  while  they  stoned  him.  (Acts  vii.  57 
seq.)  From  Jerusalem  Paul  betook  himself  to  Damascus,  to  stir  up 
the  Jews  there  also  against  the  Christians  ;  but  the  Lord  Jesus  ap- 
peared to  him  before  the  city  in  his  divine  glory,  and  showed  him 
who  it  was  that  he  persecuted.  (Acts  ix.  22—26).  As  Paul  had 
not  persecuted  the  Christians  from  intentional  wickedness,  or  from 
carnal  selfishness,  contrary  to  his  interior  conviction,  but  rather  with 
the  honest  idea  that  he  was  thereby  doing  God  service,  the  divine 
light  which  enlightened  his  dark  mind  by  this  vision  at  once  pro- 
duced an  entire  change  in  his  feelings.  With  the  same  ardent  zeal 
for  truth  and  right  which  he  had  manifested  in  persecuting  the 
Gospel,  he  now  defended  it ;  though  his  zeal  was  indeed  purified 
and  made  holier  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  After  a  season  of  quiet 
reflection' and  repose,  such  as  he  needed  to  perceive  the  greatness 
of  that  internal  change  which  he  had  undergone,  and  the  depth  of 
the  new  principle  of  life  within  him,  Paul  began  to  make  known  the 
conviction  he  had  just  obtained.  It  was  in  Antioch  (about  44  A.  D.) 
that  Paul  began  formally  to  preach ;  and  he  taught  in  this  city, 
along  with  Barnabas,  a  whole  year.  After  a  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
whither  he  carried  money  that  had  been  collected  for  the  poor  in 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

that  city,  the  elders  of  the  church  at  Antioch  designated  him  as  a 
messenger  to  the  Gentiles  ;  and  he  with  Barnabas  set  out  on  the 
first  missionary  expedition,  about  45  A.  D.  It  extended  no  farther 
than  the  neighbouring  countries  of  Asia  Minor.  Paul  travelled 
through  Cyprus  to'Perga  in  Pamphylia,  and  Antioch  in  Pisidia, 
and  returned  through  Lystra,  Derbe,  and  Attalia  by  sea  to  Antioch. 
Consequently,  on  his  first  missionary  enterprise,  the  apostle  did  not 
visit  any  of  the  cities  or  provinces  to  which  he  wrote  Epistles.  On 
his  return  to  Antioch  he  found  that  some  strict  Jewish  Christians 
had  come  thither  from  Jerusalem,  and  excited  dissensions.  Paul 
had  begun  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  in  such  a  way 
as  to  dispense  with  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  a  necessary 
duty.  Many  Jewish  Christians  could  not  rise  to  the  level  of  this 
evangelical  freedom  in  regard  to  the  external  law.  Even  Peter  at 
first  adhered  so  strenuously  to  the  forms  of  Jewish  practice,  that 
nothing  but  a  vision  could  bring  him  to  see,  that  under  the  New 
Testament,  the  Mosaic  law,  in  regard  to  meats,  had  lost  its  external 
importance.  (Acts  x.  11  seq.)  In  order  to  come  to  a  fixed  decision 
on  this  important  point,  the  church  at  Antioch  determined  that 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  with  several  companions,  should  proceed  to 
Jerusalem  to  present  this  question  before  the  Apostles.  They  there 
declared  what  God  had  wrought  by  them  among  the  Gentiles ; 
Peter  testified  the  same  in  regard  to  his  labours ;  and  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord,  showed  that  it  was  foretold,  in  the  prophecies 
of  Scripture,  that  the  Gentiles  likewise  should  be  called  into  the 
church  of  God.  On  these  grounds  the  apostles,  with  the  elders  and 
all  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  determined  to  send  deputies  to  Antioch 
with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  communicated  their  judgment  in  a 
letter  carried  by  them  to  the  church  at  Antioch.  This  important 
transaction  at  Jerusalem,  which  publicly  announced  the  character 
of  Christianity  as  an  universal  religion,  is  called  the  council  of  the 
Apostles.  It  was  held  about  the  year  52  A.  D.  The  decision  of  this 
apostolic  body  was  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  the  Apostle  Paul, 
as  in  his  subsequent  labours  he  had  to  contend  constantly  with  nar- 
row-minded Jewish  Christians,  who  wished  to  impose  the  Mosaic 
law  upon  the  Gentiles  also  as  essential  to  salvation.  Against  these 
Paul  now  advanced,  not  only  his  own  personal  influence,  but  the 
authority  of  all  the  apostles.  This,  at  least,  was  effected  thereby — 
that  the  supporters  of  the  ceremonial  law  and  its  perpetual  validity 
were  compelled  to  secede  from  the  universal  apostolic  church,  and 
form  themselves  into  a  distinct  sect.  It  is  true,  however,  that  their 
opposition  to  the  Apostle  Paul  was  continued  with  extreme  obsti- 
nacy ;  and  we  find  in  his  Epistles  numberless  allusions  to  the  perse- 
cutions which  he  encountered  at  their  hand. 

Soon  after  the  apostolic  council  (53  A.  D.)  Paul  undertook  his 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES.  IxV 

second  great  journey.  He  separated  from  Barnabas,  who  united 
with  his  kinsman  Mark  in  preaching  the  Gospel.  Paul  took  Silas 
as  his  companion  instead  of  Barnabas.  He  directed  his  course  first 
to  the  churches  founded  on  his  previous  journey  ;  and  thence  on- 
ward to  Galatia,  and  to  Troas,  on  the  western  coast  of  Asia  Minor. 
Thence  the  Lord  conducted  him  by  a  vision  in  a  dream,  into  Mace- 
donia, where  he  founded  the  church  of  Philippi  ;  and  then  went  to 
Thessalonica.  (Acts  xvi.  10  seq.  xvii.  1  seq.)  Unfortunately,  Paul 
could  remain  only  about  three  weeks  in  the  latter  city,  for,  as  he 
met  with  much  success  among  the  proselytes  that  had  connected 
themselves  with  the  Jewish  synagogues,  there  arose  an  uproar 
against  him  among  the  Jews,  who  actually  compelled  him  to  leave 
the  city,  and  flee  to  Bersea.  (Acts  xvii.  10.)  As,  however,  the 
Jews  in  this  place  likewise  vented  their  rage  against  the  apostle  of 
our  Lord,  Paul  betook  himself  to  Athens,  where  also  some  hearts 
were  warmed  by  the  fire  of  his  preaching.  He  next  proceeded  on- 
ward to  Corinth.  Here,  in  one  of  the  great  cities  of  antiquity, 
where  luxury  and  debauchery  had  reached  their  highest  pitch,  but 
where,  on  that  very  account,  a  strong  desire  for  salvation  was  readily 
excited,  Paul  laboured  with  remarkable  success  for  more  than  a  year 
and  a  half.  He  found  there  a  Jewish  family  from  Eome,  Aquila, 
and  his  wife  Priscilla,  celebrated  in  the  history  of  the  ancient  church. 
As  Aquila  pursued  the  same  craft  with  Paul,  the  latter  lived  and 
wrought  with  him,  and  besides  discoursed  in  the  house  of  a  certain 
Justus.  From  hence  Paul  wrote  the  first  Epistles  among  those 
still  preserved  to.  us,  viz.,  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. 
Now,  if  we  compare  the  tenor  of  the  Epistles  with  the  situation  of 
the  apostle,  and  their  relation  to  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  we 
shall  find  them  throughout  conformable  to  the  circumstances.  As 
Paul  was  unable  to  preach  in  Thessalonica  more  than  three  weeks, 
he  must  naturally  have  been  very  anxious  respecting  the  fate  of 
those  who  believed  in  that  city  ;  he  feared  that  they  might  again 
fall  away  on  account  of  the  persecutions  which  threatened  them. 
Hence  his  apprehensions  had  already  induced  him,  as  soon  as  he 
arrived  at  Athens,  to  send  Timothy  from  thence  to  Thessalonica,  in 
order  to  learn  what  was  really  the  condition  of  the  church.  Timothy 
rejoined  him  at  Corinth  ;  and  his  mind  being  set  at  rest  by  the  in- 
formation which  Timothy  communicated,  he  wrote  the  first  Epistle, 
for  the  purpose  of  confirming  and  establishing  the  Thessalonians 
in  the  faith  to  which  they  had  so  faithfully  adhered.  (Acts  xvii. 
15  ;  xviii.  5  ;  1  Thess.  iii.  2,  5,  6.)  It  is  a  circumstance  entirely 
consonant  with  what  we  must  suppose  to  have  been  the  situation  of 
the  Christians  in  Thessalonica,  that  they  did  not  rightly  comprehend 
the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  resurrection.  This  would  naturally  be 
the  case  from  the  shortness  of  the  period  during  which  they  enjoyed 
VOL.  I.— 5 


THE   PATJLINE   EPISTLES. 
\ 

the  apostle's  instructions.  (1  Thess.  iv.  13  seq.)  They  feared  that 
those  believers  who  might  die  before  the  coming  of  our  Lord,  would 
be  shut  out  from  the  joys  attendant  on  the  Messiah's  reign  upon 
earth.  The  apostle,  however,  sets  them  right  in  regard  to  their 
fear,  showing  them  that  there  would  be  a  twofold  resurrection. 
Those  who  had  fallen  asleep  in  faith  respecting  the  Saviour,  would 
not  rest  till  the  general  resurrection,  but  would  be  raised  up  at  the 
coming  of  Christ,  and  would  behold  the  Lord  with  those  who  were 
alive.  The  same  subject  also  soon  afterward  caused  the  Apostle 
Paul  to  write  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Christians  at  Thessalonica, 
also  from  Corinth.  The  explanation  of  Paul  had  indeed  quieted  the 
apprehension  of  the  believers  of  that  city  in  regard  to  those  of  their 
number  who  met  with  an  early  death  ;  but  some  expressions  used 
by  Paul  in  his  first  Epistle  (particularly  1  Thess.  iv.  17),  together 
with  false  rumours  respecting  his  view  of  the  proximity  of  our  Lord's 
coming,  had  led  some  susceptible  minds  to  the  idea  that  this  im- 
portant event  not  only  might,  but  must,  take  place  very  soon. 
Thus  they  openly  designated  the  period  of  our  Lord's  return,  in 
total  contrariety  to  Paul's  meaning,  who  did  indeed,  with  them, 
hope  and  ardently  desire  that  our  Lord  might  come  in  their  time, 
and  by  no  means  stated  expressly  that  he  would  not  do  so,  since  that 
would  have  been  a  negative  determination  of  the  point ;  but  main- 
tained the  possibility  that  he  would,  and  founded  thereon,  after  the 
example  of  Christ  himself,  an  exhortation  to  constant  watchfulness. 
In  order,  therefore,  to  moderate  the  excessive  disposition  of  the 
Christians  at  Thessalonica  to  look  upon  this  great  event  as  neces- 
sarily about  to  take  place  in  their  own  time,  Paul  presented  to 
view  certein  things  which  must  all  take  place  before  it.  From  the 
consideration  of  these  points,  it  could  not  but  be  evident  to  the 
Thessalonians,  that  this  event  could  not  take  place  so  suddenly  as 
they  anticipated,  and  thus  their  excited  minds  would  probably  be 
quieted.  In  these  respects,  as  regards  the  state  of  things  at  that 
time,  the  two  Epistles  possess  entire  and  undeniable  historical  keep- 
ing ;  and  we  shall  not  err  widely  from  the  truth  if  we  assign  their 
composition  to  the  years  54  and  55  of  the  Christian  era. 

From  Corinth  the  Apostle  Paul  now  returned  to  Antioch,  whence 
he  had  been  sent.  (Acts  xviii.  22.)  Without,  however,  remaining 
long  at  rest,  he  in  the  following  year  (57  A.  D.)  entered  upon  his 
third  missionary  tour,  going  first  to  Galatia  again,  where  he  had 
preached  on  his  second  tour,  and  then  to  the  wealthy  and  celebrated 
city  of  Ephesus,  where  he  abode  more  than  two  years.  From  this 
city  Paul  wrote  first  to  the  Galatians,  and  subsequently  to  the  Co- 
rinthians. The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  occasioned  by  those 
same  Jewish  Christians,  of  whom  we  have  before  remarked,  that 
they  constantly  strove  to  cast  hindrances  in  the  way  of  Paul's  opera- 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

tions.  The  Galatian  churches,  which  Paul,  on  his  second  visit  to 
Galatia  (Gal.  iv.  13),  had  found  walking  in  the  true  faith,  had  been 
misled  by  these  men  in  regard  to  the  requirements  of  religion. 
Through  the  idea  that  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law 
was  essential  to  salvation,  the  Galatian  Christians  were  led  to  regard 
circumcision,  the  solemnization  of  the  Sabbath  and  of  the  Jewish 
feasts,  and  other  ordinances  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  the  New 
Testament  valued  only  from  their  spiritual  signification,  as  of  worth 
in  an  external  view,  and  in  this  way  suffered  themselves  to  lose  sight 
of  the  interior  life  of  faith.  The  object  of  the  apostle,  therefore,  in 
his  Epistles,  was  to  develope  thoroughly  to  the  Galatians  the  rela- 
tion between  the  law  and  the  Gospel,  and  to  show  that,  -in  the  spir- 
itual freedom  conferred  by  the  latter,  the  external  rites  of  the 
former  might,  indeed,  be  observed,  but  that  they  must  be  observed 
in  a  higher  manner,  i.  e.,  spiritually.  Previously,  however,  he  makes 
some  remarks  respecting  himself  personally.  For,  as  the  Jewish 
Christians  presumed  to  dispute  Paul's  apostolic  authority,  he  found 
himself  compelled  to  vindicate  it  by  a  historical  account  of  himself. 
He  states  (i.  12  seg.),  that  he  did  not  receive  his  Gospel  from  man, 
but  immediately  from  God  ;  that  at  first  he  had  persecuted  the 
church  of  God,  but  that  God,  who  had  called  him  from  his  mother's 
womb,  had  been  pleased  to  reveal  his  Son  in  him,  that  he  might 
preach  him  to  the  heathen,  through  the  Gospel.  This  evidently  re- 
fers to  the  event  of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  Paul  near  Damascus, 
on  which  occasion  the  Lord  said  to  him,  "  I  am  Jesus,  whom  thou 
persecutest.  But  rise,  and  stand  upon  thy  feet :  for  I  have  ap- 
peared unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a 
witness  both  of  these  things  which  thou  hast  seen,  and  of  those 
things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto  thee  ;  delivering  thee  from 
the  people  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  now  I  send  thee,  to 
open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from 
the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of 
sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith 
that  is  in  me."  (Acts  xxvi.  15 — 18.)  This  reference  to  so  pe- 
culiar occurrences  in  Paul's  life  exhibits  a  sufficient  security  for  the 
genuineness  of  this  Epistle  ;  and,  in  connection  with  its  entire  COIL- 
tents,  as  also  with  its  style,  has  sufficed  to  place  it  for  ever  beyond 
suspicion. 

An  occasion  equally  sad  in  respect  to  the  apostle  gave  rise  to  the 
first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  was  likewise  written  from 
Ephesus.  Before  the  first  of  the  Epistles  which  are  in  our  posses- 
sion, Paul  had  written  another  to  Corinth  (1  Cor.  v.  9),  which,  how- 
ever, has  perished.  We  have,  indeed,  a  pretended  Epistle  of  Paul 
to  the  Corinthians,  which  claims  to  be  this  lost  Epistle,  but  a  slight 
examination  is  sufficient  to  manifest  its  spuriousness.  Moreover, 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

this  Epistle  of  Paul  was  regarded  as  lost  by  all  Christian  antiquity. 
This  first  Epistle,  as  is  shown  by  1  Cor.  v.  1 — 9,  was  occasioned  by 
the  circumstance,  that  an  individual  in  the  Corinthian  church  had 
matrimonial  intercourse  with  his  mother-in-law,  the  wife  of  his  de- 
ceased father.  Paul  pointed  out  to  the  church  the  necessity  of  ex- 
cluding from  among  them  him  who  sustained  this  incestuous  rela- 
tion, that  he  might  be  awakened  to  penitence.  To  this  Epistle  of 
Paul,  the  Corinthian  Christians  replied  in  such  a  way,  as  to  show 
plainly  that  they  misunderstood  some  parts  of  it,  particularly  what 
Paul  had  said  respecting  the  avoidance  of  lasciviousness.  These 
misapprehensions  are  corrected  by  Paul  in  the  first  of  the  two 
Epistles  which  have  been  preserved  to  us.  He  likewise  speaks  in 
this  same  letter  of  another  important  circumstance  in  regard  to  the 
Corinthian  church,  which  presents  considerable  coincidence  with  the 
situation  of  the  Christians  in  Galatia.  It  is  that  some  of  the  Jew- 
ish Christians,  who  had  excited  dissensions  among  the  believers 
there,  had  come  to  Corinth  also.  True,  some  had  remained  faithful 
to  Paul ;  but  others  appealed,  in  contradiction  of  his  authority,  to 
Peter  (Cephas),  although  he  agreed  perfectly  with  Paul  in  his  views 
respecting  the  law.  They  probably  objected  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  as 
did  the  Jewish  Christians  in  Galatia,  that  he  had  not,  like  Peter, 
known  our  Lord  personally.  Besides  these  two  parties,  Paul  men- 
tions two  others  (1  Cor.  i.  12),  the  distinctive  characteristics  of 
which,  however,  are  uncertain.  There  were,  therefore,  divisions  in 
the  Corinthian  church,  and  from  these  had  proceeded  manifold  dis- 
orders. Paul's  first  Epistle  is  occupied  with  the  reconciliation  of 
the  former,  and  the  removal  of  the  latter. 

Our  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  comprises  such  an  abund- 
ance of  peculiar  circumstances  entirely  conformable  with  the  situa- 
tion of  the  church  in  its  earliest  days,  that  we  cannot  for  a  moment 
suppose  it  possible  that  it  is  a  forgery.  Moreover,  particular  facts 
mentioned  in  it  coincide  most  exactly  with  the  events  of  Paul's  life, 
as  known  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Thus,  according  to  Acts 
xix.  22,  he  sent  away  his  two  companions,  Timothy  and  Erastus, 
from  Ephesus,  a  short  time  before  he  himself  left  the  city ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  1  Cor.  iv.  17,  likewise,  he  had  despatched  Timothy  to  the 
Corinthians.  According  to  the  same  passage  in  the  Acts,  Paul  pur- 
posed soon  to  leave  Ephesus,  and  travel  through  Achaia  (this  was 
the  Greek  province  in  which  Corinth  was  situated)  to  Jerusalem, 
and  the  same  thing  is  indicated  by  1  Cor.  xvi.  5.  Thus,  all  circum- 
stances unite  to  give  a  sure  historical  basis  to  the  Epistle.  As  its 
composition  must  be  placed  a  little  before  Paul's  departure  from 
Ephesus,  it  was  probably  written  about  59  A.  D.,  while  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  may  have  been  written  about  the  year  58  A.  D. 

Before  the  Apostle  Paul  left  Ephesus,  then,  he  sent  Titus  with 


THE  PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

a  special  commission  to  Corinth.  He  hoped  to  be  able  to  waSt  for 
him  in  Ephesus,  in  order  to  receive  an  account  of  the  troubled  state 
of  affairs  in  the  Corinthian  church,  and  of  the  reception  which  his 
Epistle  encountered.  But  a  sudden  uproar  created  by  Demetrius 
the  silver-smith  (Acts  xix.  24  seq.},  who  was  himself  injured  in  re- 
spect to  the  gains  which  he  derived  from  the  sale  of  small  silver 
models  of  the  celebrated  temple  of  Diana  at  Ephesus,  compelled 
him  to  leave  the  city  earlier  than  he  wished.  In  Macedonia,  how- 
ever, whither  Paul  immediately  betook  himself,  he  again  met  with 
Titus,  who  then  informed  him  particularly  of  the  condition  of  the 
church  at  Corinth,  and  the  impression  which  his  Epistle  had  pro- 
duced. This  account  induced  the  Apostle  to  write  the  /Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  from  Macedonia.  The  contents  o£ 
this  other  Epistle,  which  was  written  a  few  months  after  the  first, 
bear  so  close  a  relation  to  the  contents  of  the  first,  that  the  iden- 
tity of  the  author  is,  thereby  alone,  made  sufficiently  evident.  In 
the  second  chapter,  e.  g.,  we  find  mention  again  of  the  incestuous 
person,  whom  Paul  had  enjoined  it  upon  the  church  to  exclude  from 
communion  with  them.  As  he  had  now  been  excommunicated, 
Paul  speaks  in  his  behalf,  that  he  might  not  sink  into  utter  des- 
pondency (2  Cor.  ii.  7).  Of  most  importance,  however,  are  the  par- 
ticular expressions  in  regard  to  those  Jewish  Christians  who  deso- 
lated the  Corinthian  church  as  well  as  others.  Titus  had  informed 
the  apostle  with  what  an  arrogant  disposition  they  had  received  his 
letter.  Against  these,  therefore,  he  expresses  himself  with  the  ut- 
most severity,  while  he  treats  those  who  remained  faithful  to  the 
truth,  with  suavity  and  great  kindness.  In  rebuking  the  perversity 
of  these  Judaizers,  he  feels  it  necessary  to  speak  of  himself ;  for 
these  proud  sectaries  not  only  rejected  the  apostolic  authority  of 
Paul,  but  also  sought  by  their  calumnies  to  deprive  him  of  the 
honour  of  being  the  most  successful  labourer  in  our  Lord's  vineyard. 
With  noble  plainness,  therefore,  Paul  boasts  of  all  that  the  Lord 
had  done  for  him  and  through  him  ;  and  the  further  removed  this 
plainness  was  from  false  humility,  and  the  less  he  avoided  giving 
ground  for  the  imputation  of  appearing  arrogant  and  self-conceited, 
the  more  likely  was  his  account  of  himself  to  make  an  impression 
upon  all  his  opponents.  We  do  not  know  definitely  what  effect  this 
Epistle  produced  upon  the  state  of  things  at  Corinth  ;  but,  from  the 
subsequent  flourishing  condition  of  the  Corinthian  church,  we  may 
with  great  probability  infer  that  Paul's  Epistle  contributed  essen- 
tially to  the  annihilation  of  divisions.  At  all  events,  the  Epistle  is 
so  completely  Pauline,  and  harmonises  so  exactly  with  all  known 
historical  circumstances,  that  its  genuineness  has  never  been  con- 
tested either  in  ancient  or  modern  times. 

What  was  not  effected  by  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  church  of 


1XX  THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

Corinth,  was  undoubtedly  accomplished  by  the  apostle's  personal 
presence  in  this  metropolis.  For,  from  Macedonia  Paul  went  to 
Achaia  (Acts  xx.  3),  and  abode  there  three  months.  The  greater 
part  of  this  time  he  certainly  spent  in  Corinth,  and  from  hence  he 
wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  shortly  before  his  departure  from 
Corinth  for  Jerusalem  in  order  to  carry  a  collection  of  alms  for  the 
poor  of  that  city  (Acts  xxiv.  17  seq.  Horn.  xv.  25,  26).  This  im- 
portant Epistle  (viz.,  that  to  the  Romans)  bears  the  stamp  of  a  gen- 
uine apostolic  letter  so  completely  in  both  thought  and  language, 
that  neither  ancient  nor  modern  times  have  advanced  a  single  doubt 
as  to  its  origin.  The  particular  doctrine  which  Paul  presented  to 
view  more  frequently  and  more  prominently  than  any  other  apostle, 
viz.,  that  man  is  saved  by  faith  in  him  who  was  crucified  and  rose 
again,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law,  either  ceremonial  or  moral, 
forms  the  central  topic  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  and,  more- 
over, all  the  historical  allusions  which  occur  in  it  are  entirely  suit- 
able to  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  written.  Paul,  e.  g., 
according  to  this  Epistle  (Rom.  i.  12,  15  ;  Acts  xxiii),  had  not  yet 
been  in  Rome  when  he  wrote  it ;  and  this  agrees  exactly  with  the 
statement  of  the  apostle  in  Acts  xix.  21.  The  many  persons  whom 
he  salutes  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  he  became  acquainted  with 
from  his  numerous  travels  in  Asia  Minor  and  Greece ;  for,  as  there 
was  a  general  conflux  to  Rome  from  all  quarters,  and  also  a  general 
dispersion  thence,  it  being  the  centre  of  the  world,  there  was  no 
city  in  which  Romans  did  not  reside,  or  of  whose  inhabitants  many 
were  not  constrained  by  circumstances  to  journey  to  Rome,  or  to  es- 
tablish themselves  there  as  residents.  On  account  of  this  import- 
ance of  the  city  of  Rome,  which  must  necessarily  have  been  com- 
municated to  the  church  in  that  place,  there  is  sufficient  proof 
of  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  in  the  single  circumstance  that 
this  church,  in  which  Paul  afterwards  abode  some  years,  never  con- 
tradicted the  universal  opinion  that  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle  to  them, 
but  rather  rejoiced  in  being  honoured  with  such  an  apostolic  com- 
munication. 

Hitherto  we  have  seen  the  celebrated  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  con- 
stantly labouring  with  freedom  and  boldness  ;  but  his  departure 
from  Corinth  brought  upon  him  a  long  and  cruel  imprisonment. 
For  Paul  immediately  returned  from  Corinth  to  Macedonia,  em- 
barked there  at  Philippi  (Acts  xx.  3  seq.)  and  sailed  along  the 
coasts  of  Asia  Minor.  At  Miletus  he  called  to  him  the  elders  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus  (Acts  xx.  17  seq.)  and  took  pathetic  leave  of 
them  ;  for  he  was  persuaded  that  he  should  never  again  see  these 
beloved  brethren  (xx.  38).  About  the  year  60  A.  D.  the  apostle 
arrived  at  Jerusalem,  having  passed  through  Caesarea  ;  but  was 
there  immediately  arrested  (Acts  xxii.)  and  carried  back  to  Caesarea 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

(Acts  xxiii.  31  seq.)  Here  lie  was  indeed  examined  by  the  pro- 
consul Felix  ;  but  as  lie  could  not  pronounce  sentence  against  him 
and  hesitated  to  release  him,  Paul  remained  two  years  in  captivity. 
At  the  end  of  that  time  there  came  another  proconsul,  Porcius 
Festus,  to  Caesarea.  He  commenced  the  examination  anew,  but 
when  the  apostle,  as  a  Koman  citizen,  appealed  to  Caesar,  he  sent 
him  to  Rome.  This  was  about  62  A.  D.  On  the  voyage  thither, 
Paul,  together  with  the  Roman  soldiers  who  accompanied  him,  suf- 
fered shipwreck,  and  they  were  compelled  to  pass  the  winter  on  the 
island  of  Malta.  Paul  did  not,  therefore,  arrive  at  Rome  before  the 
commencment  of  the  following  year,  and  was  there  again  kept  as  a 
prisoner  for  two  years,  i.  e.,  till  65  A.  D.,  before  his  case  was  decided. 
Still  his  confinement  at  Rome  was  not  so  strict  as  that  at  Caasarea. 
He  was  permitted  to  hire  a  dwelling  in  the  city,  to  go  about,  speak, 
and  write  as  he  pleased  ;  only,  he  was  always  accompanied  by  a 
soldier.  Luke  alone  details  all  these  events  in  the  last  chapters  of 
the  Acts,  with  very  great  minuteness.,  From  Paul's  Epistles  we 
learn  nothing  respecting  this  period  ;  for  Paul  seems  not  to  have 
written  at  all  from  Caasarea.  Probably  the  strict  durance  in  which 
he  was  held  did  not  permit  any  communication  by  writing.  In  the 
providence  of  God,  this  long  confinement  may  have  served  to  ac- 
quaint Paul  with  himself,  with  the  depths  of  his  own  interior  being. 
For,  the  manner  of  life  which  Paul  led  and  was  obliged  to  lead,  the 
perpetual  bustle  of  travel,  his  constant  efforts  in  regard  to  others, 
might  have  injured  him  by  dissipation  of  his  thoughts,  and  might, 
so  to  speak,  have  exhausted  the  fulness  of  his  spirit,  had  he  not 
possessed  some  quiet  seasons  in  which,  while  his  attention  was 
turned  wholly  upon  himself,  he  might  be  spiritually  replenished  and 
invigorated  for  future  seasons  of  intense  outward  exertion. 

But  from  the  other  of  the  two  places  where  Paul  was  compelled 
to  remain  a  prisoner  for  a  long  period,  i.  e.,  Rome,  he  certainly 
wrote  several  Epistles,  viz.,  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Philip- 
pians,  Colossians,  and  Philemon.  Still,  although  in  these  Epistles 
mention  is  made  of  some  historical  particulars,  he  supposes  the  oc- 
currences in  regard  to  himself  to  be  generally  known  among  the 
Christians  of  the  churches  in  Macedonia  and  Asia  Minor,  and  there- 
fore does  not  enter  into  details  respecting  them.  Unfortunately 
Luke  closed  his  book  of  Acts  at  the  point  when  Paul  had  lived  two 
years  as  a  prisoner  at  Rome  ;  and  therefore,  in  further  designating 
the  historical  connection  of  Paul's  Epistles,  we  are  not  able  to  state 
the  circumstances  of  time  and  place  with  so  much  precision  and  cer- 
tainty as  hitherto.  This  circumstance,  likewise,  explains  how,  in 
such  a  state  of  things,  the  remaining  Epistles  of  Paul  afford  more 
room  to  doubt  of  their  genuineness  than  was  the  case  in  regard  to 
those  which,  we  see,  well  and  easily  fall  into  the  history  of  Paul  as 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 


related  in  the  Acts.     We  shall  therefore  devote  separate  considera- 
tion to  these  Epistles. 


CHAPTER  V. 

CONTINUATION. — OF   THE   PAULINE    EPISTLES   COMPOSED    DURING 
AND   AFTEE   PAUL'S   IMPRISONMENT   AT   ROME. 

OF  the  Epistles  composed  by  Paul  during  his  imprisonment  at 
Rome,  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians  and  Philemon, 
can  be  easily  shown  with  sufficient  certainty  to  be  genuine  writings 
of  the  apostle.  First,  as  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  Paul 
clearly  represents  himself  therein,  not  only  as  a  prisoner,  but  also  as 
a  prisoner  at  Rome  ;  for  he  speaks  of  the  barracks  occupied  by  the 
imperial  guards  (the  Praetorium  :  Luther  translates  the  word  by 
JRicht-haus,  or  hall  of  justice,  Phil.  i.  13),  into  which  the  fame  of  his 
imprisonment  had  extended  itself.  Probably  Paul  had  won  over  to 
the  gospel  the  soldiers  set  to  guard  him,  to  whom  he  was  wont  to 
preach,  and,  through  these,  others  in  the  camp  may  have  been  con- 
verted. Even  the  imperial  palace  itself  is  mentioned  by  Paul 
(Phil.  iv.  22),  as  having  been  already  penetrated  by  the  seeds  of  the 
word  of  God.  These  clear  allusions  leave  not  the  slightest  doubt 
that  the  Epistle  was  written  from  Rome.  Nor  can  any  doubt  re- 
main as  to  the  question,  whether  it  was  really  written  to  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  Macedonian  city  Pliilippi.  For,  according  to  Acts 
xvi.  12  seq.  the  apostle's  labours  in  this  city  had  been  particularly 
blessed.  The  Lord  at  once  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,  so  that  she 
believed  the  preaching  of  Paul.  An  unfortunate  occurrence  respect- 
ing a  damsel  possessed  with  a  spirit  of  divination,  which  the  apostle 
expelled,  constrained  him  to  leave  the  city.  The  church  of  Philippi, 
however,  always  preserved  a  particular  attachment  to  the  Apostle 
Paul,  and  his  acknowledgement  of  this  fact  runs  through  the  whole 
of  his  letter  to  them.  The  apostle  calls  them  his  brethren  dearly 
beloved  and  longed  for,  his  joy  and  crown  (Phil.  iv.  1),  and  thanks 
the  Philippian  Christians  that  they  so  faithfully  had  respect  to  his 
bodily  necessities  (Phil.  iv.  15,  16).  These  characteristics  are  de- 
cisive in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles,  which,  more- 
over, has  not  been  contested  either  in  ancient  or  modern  times. 

The  case  is  the  same  in  regard  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 
This  church  was  not  founded  by  Paul  in  person  ;  as  he  himself  in- 
dicates in  Col.  ii.  1.  He  had  indeed  been  in  Phrygia,  but  had  not 
visited  the  city  of  Colosse  on  his  journey  through  this  province  of 
Asia  Minor.  Paul  nevertheless  wrote  to  them,  as  also  to  the 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

Komans,  in  part  from  universal  Christian  love,  which  called  upon  him 
to  acknowledge  the  members  of  every  church  of  Christ  as  brethren, 
and  in  part  from  the  special  reason,  that  the  Gospel  had  been  carried 
to  Colosse  by  disciples  of  his,  particularly  Epaphras.  The  imme- 
diate occasion  of  his  Epistle,  however,  was,  that  heretics  threatened 
to  draw  away  the  church  from  the  true  faith.  These  individuals 
were  not  of  the  ordinary  Judaizing  class  ;  along  with  much  that 
was  Jewish,  they  had  some  Gnostic  characteristics.  Now  Phrygia 
is  the  precise  spot  where,  from  the  earliest  times  downward,  we  find 
a  prevalent  tendency  to  fantastic  apprehension  of  religion.  Thus 
the  circumstance  that,  according  to  Paul's  representation,  men  of 
this  stamp  had  gained  influence  in  Colosse,  suits  perfectly  well  with 
what  we  know  of  that  city.  Nor  is  it  otherwise  than  very  natural, 
that  few  particular  allusions  occur  in  the  Epistle,  as  he  was  not 
personally  known  to  the  church.  He  however  mentions  his  imprison- 
ment, and  sends  salutations  also  from  some  persons  of  their  acquaint- 
ance who  were  in  his  vicinity,  among  others  from  Aristarchus  (Col. 
iv.  10),  who,  as  we  learn  from  the  Acts,  had  come  to  Home  with 
Paul  and  Luke  (xxvii.  2).  The  latter  companion  of  Paul  likewise 
salutes  the  believers  in  Phrygia  (iv.  14).  Of  individuals  themselves 
resident  in  Colosse,  he  saluted  especially  Archippus  (iv.  17),  who 
occupied  some  ministry  in  the  church.  Concerning  this  man,  as 
also  concerning  Onesimus,  whom  Paul  mentions  (Col.  iv.  9),  we  gain 
more  particular  information  from  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  In  this 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  likewise,  every  thing  harmonises  so  ex- 
actly with  Paul's  circumstances  in  general,  and  his  relation  to  the 
church  which  he  addressed  in  particular,  that  no  one  has  ever  been 
led  to  question  its  genuineness,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  days. 

With  the  same  entire  unanimity  has  the  genuineness  of  Paul's 
Epistle  to  Philemon  likewise  been  always  admitted.  This  delight- 
ful little  Epistle  so  clearly  exhibits  all  the  characteristics  of  the 
great  apostle,  and  is  so  utterly  free  from  every  thing  which  would 
make  it  probable  that  any  person  could  have  a  motive  in  forging 
it,  that  no  one  would  ever  entertain  the  idea  of  denying  that 
Paul  was  its  author.  Philemon,  to  whom  the  Epistle  is  addressed, 
probably  lived  in  Colosse,  for  that  Archippus,  who  held  an  office  in 
the  church  at  Colosse,  appears  here  as  his  son,  and  Appia  as  his 
wife  (Phil.  v.  2).  Probably  Philemon  was^11  opulent  man ;  for 
he  had  so  spacious  a  house,  that  it  accommoo.  :Md  the  assemblies  oi 
believers.  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle,  likewise,  in  confinement  (v.  13), 
and  sends  salutations  from  all  those  who,  according  to  the  Acts  and 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  were  in  his  vicinity  (v.  23,  24). 
Onesimus,  who  had  fled  from  the  relation  of  bondage  which  he  had 
sustained  towards  Philemon  in  Colosse,  Paul  sends  back  to  his  mas- 
ter, whom  he  informs  that  his  slave  had  been  led  by  him  to  obey 


THE   PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

the  Gospel,  so  that  Philemon  is  to  receive  back  again  as  a  brother 
him  whom  he  had  lost  as  a  slave.  The  whole  of  this  small  Epistle 
comprises  indeed  no  important  doctrinal  contents  ;  but  it  is  an  ex- 
hibition of  interior,  deep  feeling,  and  delicate  regard  to  circum- 
stances on  the  part  of  the  apostle,  and  as  such  has  always  been  very 
dear  and  valuable  to  the  church. 

In  regard  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  however,  the  case  is 
totally  different  from  what  it  is  in  regard  to  the  three  other  Epistles 
sent  from  Kome.  There  are  so  many  remarkable  circumstances  in 
relation  to  this  Epistle,  that  we  can  easily  comprehend  how  its 
genuineness  has  been  often  brought  in  question.  Still,  all  the 
doubts  which  may  have  been  excited  are  completely  removed  on  a 
closer  examination,  so  that  it  can  by  no  means  be  denied  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  by  the  apostle,  even  if  its  actual  destination  to 
Ephesus  cannot  be  established. 

If  it  be  considered  that  Paul,  as  we  saw  above  in  the  historical 
account  of  the  apostle's  life,  was  twice  in  Ephesus,  and  that  once 
he  even  resided  there  for  about  three  years,  it  must  certainly  ap- 
pear very  strange  that,  in  an  Epistle  to  this  church,  of  the  elders  of 
which  Paul  had  taken  leave  in  so  pathetic  a  manner  (Acts  xx.  17), 
there  should  be  found  no  salutations.  In  writing  to  the  Romans, 
Paul,  though  he  had  never  been  at  Kome,  sent  salutations  to  so 
many  persons  that  their  names  fill  an  entire  chapter,  while  in  this 
Epistle  not  a  single  person  is  greeted.  Moreover,  there  are  no  per- 
sonal and  confidential  allusions  in  any  part  of  the  Epistle.  Paul 
appears  only  in  the  general  relation  of  a  Christian  teacher  and  a 
friend  to  his  readers.  There  is  certainly  something  extremely 
strange  in  this  character  of  the  Epistle,  particularly,  moreover,  as 
that  which  we  should  especially  expect  to  find  in  the  Epistle,  viz., 
allusion  to  heretics,  against  which  Paul  had  so  expressly  warned  the 
Ephesian  elders,  is  entirely  wanting  (Acts  xx.  29  seq.) 

The  difficulties  are  increased  when  we  know  what  was  the  case 
originally  concerning  the  address  to  the  readers  of  the  Epistle  (Eph. 
i.  1).  Instead  of  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  will  of 
God,  to  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus,"  as  it  stands  in  most 
copies,  Marcion,  in  his  MS.,  read  :  "  to  the  saints  at  Laodicea" 
In  other  MSS.  there  was  no  name  at  all,  neither  Ephesus,  nor  Lao- 
dicea ;  and  in  these  tf  inscription  of  the  Epistle  ran  thus  :  "  Paul, 
an  apostle  of  Jesuife^&rfat,  by  the  will  of  God,  to  the  saints  which 

dwell  at ."     Instead  of  the  name  was  a  vacant  space,  which, 

however,  was  often  neglected  by  the  copyists,  who  thus  perplexed 
the  matter  still  further. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  if  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  be  com- 
pared with  that  to  the  Colossians,  we  shall  find  the  same  funda- 
mental thought,  and  often  even  the  same  train  of  ideas,  only  the 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

first  is  more  minute  and  expanded,  while  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  the  thoughts  are  more  concisely  and  briefly  presented. 
On  account  of  this  relative  character  it  has  been  declared  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  probably  only  an  enlargement  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  made  with  a  special  design  by  some  other 
hand.  But  though  for  a  moment  such  a  supposition  might  not  ap- 
pear altogether  unfounded,  its  plausibility  is  completely  dissipated 
when  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Epistle  is  made  apparent  by  a 
right  and  thorough  notion  of  its  origin.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians is  undoubtedly  what  is  termed  a  circular  letter,  directed  not 
to  a  single  church  but  to  many  at  once.  In  such  a  letter,  therefore, 
there  could  be  no  personal  allusions,  because  what  might  interest 
one  circle  of  readers  might  be  unintelligible  to  another.  In  this 
Epistle,  therefore,  Paul  adheres  exclusively  to  generalities,  and 
touches  only  on  such  topics  as  would  be  of  interest  to  all  members 
of  the  churches  for  whom  the  Epistle  was  intended.  Now,  on  the 
supposition  that  Ephesus  and  Laodicea  were  of  the  number  of  those 
churches  for  which  the  Epistle  was  intended,  nothing  is  more  easy 
-of  explanation  than  the  fact,  that  the  name  of  the  former  was  in  the 
inscription  of  some  MBS.,  and  the  name  of  the  latter  in  that  of 
others.  The  messenger  who  carried  the  apostolic  letter  may  have 
taken  several  copies  with  him,  in  which  the  space  for  the  name  of 
the  place  was  not  filled  out,  and  remained  thus  until  they  were  de- 
livered, when  the  name  of  the  church  which  received  any  particular 
one  was  added  to  it.  The  diffusion  of  the  Epistle  abroad  was  mainly 
from  the  capital  city  of  Ephesus  ;  and  hence  the  name  Ephesus  got 
into  the  inscription  of  most  of  the  MSS.  Marcion,  however,  came 
into  possession  of  a  transcript  from  the  copy  which  was  delivered  at 
Laodicea,  and  for  this  reason  he  read  Laodicea  instead  of  Ephesus 
in  the  inscription.  In  some  copies  there  may  have  been  a  total 
neglect  to  fill  up  the  spaces  left  vacant  for  the  names  ;  and  in  this 
way  some  MSS.  got  into  circulation  in  which  no  city  was  designated. 
It  is  seen  how  satisfactorily  and  completely,  on  this  single  sup- 
position, that  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  a  circular  letter,  our 
difficulties  .disappear  at  once.  It  is  true  the  striking  resemblance 
of  the  Epistle  to  that  to  the  Colossians  still  remains  ;  and  in  recent 
times  the  greatest  stress  has  been  laid  on  this  very  point.  Both 
Epistles  have  essentially  the  same  contents,  only  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  is  more  full  and  minute,  as  has  been  already  re- 
marked. But  let  it  be  considered  that  the  two  Epistles  were  writ- 
ten not  only  about  the  same  time,  but  under  entirely  similar  cir- 
cumstances. Is  it  then  to  be  wondered  at,  that  there  is  a  striking 
similarity  in  contents  and  arrangement  ?  What  purpose  could  there 
have  been  in  forging  or  counterfeiting  an  Epistle,  in  which  the 
fraudulent  author  said  the  same  things  which  were  contained  in  a 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

genuine  Epistle  of  the  man  to  whom  he  wished  that  his  production 
should  be  ascribed  ?  It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  there  is  nothing  in 
this  resemblance  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  to  that  to  the 
Colossians,  which  can  justify  us  in  inferring  the  spuriousness  of 
either.  For,  whether  we  suppose  that  the  longest  (that  to  the 
Ephesians)  was  written  first,  and  that  Paul  afterwards  repeated  the 
same  thoughts  in  the  shortest  (that  to  the  Colossians)  ;  or,  vice 
versa,  that  he  wrote  the  shortest  first,  and  afterwards  felt  himself 
called  upon  to  state  the  same  ideas  more  at  length  in  the  other, 
there  is  not  the  least  harm  done  by  their  similarity  to  each  other, 
particularly  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  contains  many  ideas 
wholly  peculiar  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  which  are  wanting  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and  this  too  in  his  own  phraseology  and 
style. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  further,  that  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  mentions  a  letter  to  the  church  at  Laodicea,  and  charges 
the  former  to  communicate  their  Epistle  to  the  believers  in  Lao- 
dicea, and  in  return  to  request  the  Epistle  addressed  to  them. 
Now,  because,  as  we  have  seen,  Marcion  regarded  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  as  having  been  directed  to  the  Laodiceans,  it  has  been 
supposed  that  our  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  the  one  meant  by 
Paul.  But,  plausible  as  this  may  appear  at  first  sight,  it  is  still  im- 
probable, on  a  closer  examination,  that  it  is  correct  ;  for,  first,  the 
great  similarity  between  the  two  Epistles  makes  against  it,  as  this 
must  evidently  have  rendered  their  mutual  transfer  of  less  conse- 
quence. Then,  too,  it  is  not  common  to  direct  special  salutations 
to  be  given  to  those  to  whom  we  write  ourselves  at  the  same  time, 
which  is  done  by  Paul  in  relation  to  the  Laodiceans  in  his  letter 
to  the  Colossians  (passim).  Moreover,  our  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians, as  a  circular  letter,  could  not  well  be  designated  by  the 
name,  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans.  Thus,  it  is  far  more  probable 
that  this  letter  was  a  separate  one,  which  has  been  lost  to  us. 

As  early  as  the  time  of  Jerome,  there  existed  a  separate  Epistle 
to  the  Laodiceans,  different  from  that  to  the  Ephesians.  But  the 
father  just  mentioned  remarks,  that  all  without  exception  reject  it. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that,  on  account  of  the  passage,  Col.  iv. 
15,  16,  some  one  had  forged  an  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  just  as 
was  the  case,  as  we  have  before  stated,  with  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  which  was  lost. 

There  remain,  therefore,  only  the  three  Epistles  of  the  apostle, 
which  are  usually  comprehended  under  the  title  of  Pastoral  Letters, 
viz.,  the  two  to  Timothy,  and  that  to  Titus.  They  are  all  three  oc- 
cupied with  a  consideration  of  the  duties  of  a  pastor  of  the  church 
of  Christ,  and  on  account  of  this  common  purport  are  classed  under 
the  general  designation  which  we  have  mentioned.  In  a  close  inves- 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

tigation  of  the  contents  and  the  historical  allusions  of  these  Epistles 
there  arise  very  many  difficulties,  on  which  account  they  have  be- 
come subject  to  doubt  beyond  all  the  other  Pauline  Epistles. 
Ancient  tradition  is  certainly  wholly  in  favour  of  their  genuineness, 
as  in  relation  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  ;  for  the  circumstance, 
that  Marcion  did  not  have  them  in  his  canon,  is  not  regarded  as  im- 
portant, even  by  opponents  of  the  Epistles,  who  are  at  all  impar- 
tial. It  was  undoubtedly  only  through  accident  that  these  Epistles 
remained  unknown  to  him,  and  to  his  native  city,  Sinope,  upon  the 
Black  Sea  ;  for  had  he  possessed  historical  reasons  against  its  re- 
ception, they  could  not  have  been  so  completely  lost  at  a  later 
period.  We  may  here  see,  in  fact,  a  very  important  evidence  in 
behalf  of  the  genuineness  of  these  Epistles  ;  for  Timothy  lived  when 
Paul  wrote  to  him,  not  in  a  distant,  unknown  place,  but  in  Ephesus, 
one  of  the  chief  cities  frequented  by  the  Christians  of  the  ancient 
church.  The  scene  of  the  labours  of  Titus  was  the  isle  of  Crete, 
which  also,  on  account  of  its  vicinity  to  Corinth,  and  to  other  im- 
portant churches,  maintained  lively  intercourse  with  the  churches 
generally.  Now,  how  Epistles  directed  to  persons  labouring  in 
places  of  so  much  note,  and  holding  so  high  a  rank,  as  being  assist- 
ants of  the  apostle,  could  gain  the  reputation  of  being  genuine 
throughout  the  whole  ancient  church,  when  they  were  really  forged  in 
the  name  of  the  apostle,  is  indeed  difficult  of  comprehension,  as  so 
many  must  have  been  able  to  expose  the  deception.  Supposing, 
therefore,  that  on  a  close  investigation  of  the  contents  of  the  Epistle, 
there  should  appear  much  that  is  strange,  it  must  be  considered  as 
losing  a  great  deal  of  its  influence  in  relation  to  the  question  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistles,  from  the  fact  that  this  is  so  firmly  es- 
tablished by  the  tradition  of  the  church. 

Another  circumstance  to  be  premised,  which  is  very  much  in 
favour  of  their  genuineness,  is,  that  in  all  the  three  Epistles  there 
occurs  a  multitude  of  personal  and  particular  allusions.  Now,  it  is 
clear  that  an  impostor,  who  was  palming  off  his  own  Epistles  as  an- 
other's (for  such  is  the  language  which  we  must  use  concerning  the 
author  of  these  three  compositions,  if  they  are  not  the  work  of  Paul 
himself,  since  he  expressly  names  himself  as  the  author,  besides  in- 
dicating the  fact  in  a  manner  not  to  be  mistaken),  would  avoid  as 
much  as  possible  all  special  circumstances,  because  he  would  be  too 
likely  to  betray  himself  in  touching  upon  them,  since  particulars 
cannot  be  very  minutely  known  to  a  stranger.  Moreover,  a  forgery 
generally  wants  that  graphic  exactness  which  is  exhibited  so  mani- 
festly in  writings  that  spring  out  of  actually  existing  circumstances. 
Hence  every  unprejudiced  person  would,  in  the  outset,  think  it  very 
unlikely  that  a  writing  was  forged  in  which  there  occurred  such  spe- 
cial allusions  as  we  find  in  1  Tim.  v.  23,  where  Paul  savs  to  Timo- 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

thy,  "  Drink  no  longer  water,  but  use  a  little  wine  for  thy.  stomach's 
sake  and  thine  often  infirmities."  Of  the  same  nature,  also,  is  a 
passage  in  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  (2  Tim.  iv.  13),  in  which 
the  apostle  complains  that  he  had,  through  forgetfulness,  left  his 
cloak,  some  books,  and  parchments,  with  a  friend,  and  desires  Timo- 
thy to  take  care  of  them.  Plainly,  such  things  are  not  forged  ;  for 
to  what  end  should  any  one  give  himself  the  useless  trouble  to  in- 
vent such  insignificant  matters,  if  they  did  not  actually  happen, 
since  they  could  not  do  either  any  harm  or  any  good.  In  the  same 
Epistle  (2  Tim.  iv.  20,  21),  Paul  sends  salutations  from  many  indi- 
viduals, and  gives  various  information  respecting  persons  of  their 
mutual  acquaintance.  "Erastus  abode  at  Corinth,"  says  Paul, 
"  but  Trophimus  have  I  left  at  Melitus  sick ;"  and  he  invites  Timo- 
thy himself  to  come  to  him  before  winter.  If  any  person  invented 
all  this,  we  must  at  least  call  him  extremely  inconsiderate,  for  he 
ought  not  certainly  to  have  mentioned  such  noted  cities,  since  the 
Christians  who  dwelt  in  them  could  learn,  without  any  great  diffi- 
culty, whether  any  one  of  the  name  of  Trophimus  was  ever  at  Mi- 
letus with  the  apostle,  and  was  left  there  by  him  sick,  and  whether 
Erastus  abode  at  Corinth.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus, 
as  one  may  be  convinced  by  examining  Titus  iii.  12. 

Still,  let  us  look  at  the  reasons  which  are  advanced  against  the 
genuineness  of  these  Epistles.  Certain  investigators  have  thought 
that  there  was  in  all  three  of  them  something  not  only  in  the 
phraseology,  but  in  the  style  altogether,  which  cannot  but  be  re- 
garded as  unlike  Paul.  The  weakness  of  such  statements,  however, 
may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the  fact  that  another  investigator,  of 
no  less  acuteness,  supposes  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  and  the 
one  to  Titus  to  be  really  genuine  Epistles  of  Paul,  while  the  first  to 
Timothy  is  spurious,  and  imitated  from  the  other  two.  This  second 
investigator,  therefore,  founds  his  argument  for  the  spuriousness  of 
the  first  of  the  three  Epistles  on  the  genuineness  of  the  two  others, 
thus  overthrowing,  by  his  own  reasoning,  the  position  of  the  former 
investigators  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of  supposing  them  all  spuri- 
ous. The  historical  difficulties,  however,  which  are  discerned  on 
close  examination  of  the  Epistles,  are  of  more  consequence.  It  is 
from  these,  properly,  that  all  attacks  upon  these  pastoral  letters 
have  originated,  and  in  these  they  find  their  excuse,  only  writers 
ought  not  to  have  so  manifestly  confounded  difficulties  with  positive 
arguments  against  the  genuineness  of  a  writing. 

.As  to  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  the  principal  difficulty  is, 
to  point  out  a  period  in  Paul's  life  exactly  coinciding  with  the  state- 
ment which  the  apostle  makes  at  the  outset  (i.  3).  He  says  that 
when  he  went  to  Macedonia  he  left  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  to  protect 
the  true  faith  and  thwart  heretics  in  that  city.  Now  we  know,  in- 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES.  IXXIX 

deed,  that  when  Demetrius  the  silver-smith  drove  Paul  from  Ephe- 
BUS,  he  went  to  Macedonia  ;  but  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  then 
have  left  Timothy  behind  at  Ephesus,  since  he  sent  him  before  him- 
self to  Macedonia  with  Erastus.  Thus,  when  Paul  wrote  his  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  from  Macedonia,  Timothy  was  with  him. 
(Coinp.  Acts  xix.  22,  2  Cor.  i.  1).  Moreover,  we  are  informed  of  no 
other  journey  of  Paul  from  Ephesus  to  Macedonia,  when  he  left 
Timothy  behind  in  the  city  to  watch  over  the  church-;  and  hence 
arises  a  difficulty  in  assigning  this  Epistle  its  proper  place  in  Paul's 
life. 

There  are  similar  circumstances  respecting  the  Second  Epistle. 
This  Epistle,  too,  is  directed  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  Paul  clearly 
writes  from  Home.  (Comp.  2  Tim.  iv.  16,  17,  with  2  Tim.  i.  16, 
18,  iv.  19).  He  was  in  bonds  (i.  16),  and  was  expecting  a  new  ex- 
amination of  his  cause.  Now,  he  invites  Timothy  to  come  to  him, 
and  requests  him  to  make  haste  and  come  before  winter  (iv.  13,  21). 
But,  according  to  Col.  i.  1,  Philemon  ver.  1,  and  Phil.  i.  1,  Timothy, 
at  the  time  of  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome,  as  related  by  Luke  in 
the  Acts,  was  in  Paul's  company ;  and  hence  it  seems  impossible 
that  Paul  could  have  written  to  him  at  Ephesus.  It  is  true  Paul's 
imprisonment  at  Rome  lasted  two  years,  and  it  might  be  supposed 
that  Timothy  was  for  some  time  with  him,  and  for  some  time  away 
during  his  imprisonment ;  but  there  are  other  circumstances  which 
make  it  very  improbable  that  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  was 
written  during  the  same  imprisonment  in  which  the  Epistles  to  the 
Ephesians,  Colossians,  and  Philippians  were  composed.  According 
to  2  Tim.  iv.  13,  Paul  had  left  at  Troas,  a  cloak,  books,  and  parch- 
ments, which  Timothy  was  to  bring  with  him  when  he  came  to  Paul 
(iv.  21).  Now,  before  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome,  which  lasted  two 
years,  he  was  also  two  years  in  Ceesarea.  We  should,  therefore,  be 
compelled  to  suppose  that  he  had  left  these  things  behind  at  Troas, 
four  years  before.  But  certainly  it  is  probable  that  Paul  would  have 
made  some  other  disposition  of  them  in  the  mean  time,  if  they  were 
of  any  consequence  to  him.  But  even  if  we  may  suppose  that  Paul 
would  send  for  clothing  and  books  which  had  laid  at  Troas  for 
years,  it  is  out  of  the  question  that  he  should  say  in  relation  to  a 
journey  made  four  years  before  :  "  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth,  but 
Trophimus,  have  I  left  at  Miletus  sick/'  (2  Tim.  iv.  20).  Miletus 
was  in  the  vicinity  of  Ephesus,  at  a  distance  from  Rome  where  Paul 
was  writing.  Now,  if  Paul  had  not  been  in  Miletus  for  four  years, 
it  is  wholly  impossible  that  he  should  have  mentioned  the  illness  of 
one  whom  he  had  left  behind  at  Miletus  so  long  a  time  before,  be- 
cause his  case  must  long  since  have  been  decided.  Similar  diffi- 
culties present  themselves,  likewise,  on  a  close  examination  of  the 
Epistle  to  Titus,  For  Paul  writes  in  this  Epistle  (i.  4,  5,  iii.  12), 


1XXX  THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

that  he  himself  had  been  in  the  Island  of  Crete,  and  had  left  Titus 
there  behind  him  for  the  same  purpose  which  caused  him  to  leave 
Timothy  in  Ephesus  ;  and  states  that  he  intended  to  spend  the 
winter  in  Nicopolis,  whither  he  directs  Titus  to  come  and  meet  him. 
Now,  it  is  true,  Paul,  according  to  the  Acts  (xxvii.  8),  was  once  in 
Crete,  but  it  was  as  a  prisoner,  and  on  a  voyage.  In  these  circum- 
stances, therefore,  •  he  could  not  accomplish  much  ;  nor  could  he 
leave  Titus  behind,  as  on  his  voyage  Titus  was  nowhere  in  his 
neighbourhood.  Nothing  is  told  us  in  any  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment history  as  to  Paul's  residence  in  Nicopolis,  and  it  is  the  more 
difficult  to  come  to  any  assurance  respecting  it  from  the  fact,  that 
there  were  so  many  cities  of  that  name.  Thus,  this  Epistle,  like- 
wise, cannot  be  assigned  to  its  place  in  Paul's  history,  and  therefore 
it  is  perfectly  true,  that  there  are  difficulties  incident  to  an  exami- 
nation of  these  pastoral  letters ;  but,  as  we  have  before  observed, 
difficulties  are  not  equivalent  to  positive  arguments  against  their 
genuineness.  It  is  true  they  would  be,  were  we  so  exactly  and 
minutely  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  that 
such  a  difficulty  in  assigning  an  epistle  its  place  among  the  circum- 
stances of  his  life  would  be  the  same  as  an  impossibility.  If,  for  ex- 
ample, we  knew  with  certainty  that  the  Apostle  Paul  never  resided 
in  any  city  by  the  name  of  Nicopolis,  we  should  be  obliged  to  con- 
sider the  Epistle  to  Titus,  which  purports  to  have  been  written 
from  some  place  called  Nicopolis,  as  spurious  and  forged. 

But  this  is  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that  in  those  Epistles  of 
Paul  which  are  admitted  to  be  genuine,  very  many  occurrences  are 
noticed,  of  which  we  have  no  further  information.  A  remarkable 
instance  of  this  kind  is  the  well-known  passage,  2  Cor.  xi.  23  seq., 
in  which  Paul  states,  that  he  had  five  times  received  of  the  Jews 
forty  stripes  save  one,  thrice  being  beaten  with  rods,  once  stoned, 
thrice  suffered  shipwreck,  etc.,  etc.  Of  very  few  of  these  sufferings 
of  Paul  do  we  know  the  particulars.  How  much,  therefore,  of  what 
took  place  in  his  life,  may  remain  unknown  to  us.  It  is  to  be  re- 
membered, too,  that  the  brief  general  statements  given  by  Luke  in 
the  Acts  extend  over  long  periods  in  the  apostle's  life.  At  Corinth, 
Ephesus,  Caesarea,  and  Rome,  Paul  abode  for  years.  Now,  as  slight 
journeys  abroad  are,  it  is  well  known,  commonly  comprehended  by 
historians  in  a  residence  at  any  particular  place  for  a  long  period, 
may  not  this  have  been  frequently  the  case  in  Luke's  history  ? 
Many  have  thought  this  probable,  and  have  therefore  supposed  short 
journeys  from  this  or  that  place,  and  in  this  way  have  attempted  to 
find  some  situation  in  Paul's  life,  which  should  appear  suitable  for 
the  composition  of  one  or  another  of  the  pastoral  letters.  We  will 
not  trouble  our  readers,  however,  with  an  enumeration  of  these  dif- 
ferent views,  which,  nevertheless,  show  that  it  is  not  impossible  to 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

designate  some  situation  in  which  Paul  might  have  written  these 
Epistles.  We  choose  rather  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  development 
of  an  important  supposition  by  which  a  suitable  period  of  time  is 
obtained  for  all  the  three  Epistles  together,  and  their  relation  to 
each  other  is  determined.  This  supposition  is,  that  Paul  was  set  at 
liberty  from  the  first  imprisonment  at  Kome  related  by  Luke 
(which  had  lasted  two  years  when  Luke  finished  his  book  of  Acts), 
performed  important  missionary  tours  afterward,  and  was  at  last  im- 
prisoned a  second  time  at  Home,  and  at  this  time  died  there  a  mar- 
tyr's death.  It  is  very  evident  that  if  we  can  in  this  way  gain  space 
of  time  for  another  journey  to  Asia  and  Crete,  it  will  be  easy  to 
imagine  the  situations  which  gave  rise  to  the  first  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy and  that  to  Titus.  The  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  must  then 
have  been  written  in  Rome  itself  during  the  second  imprisonment, 
and  any  remarkable  expressions  which  it  contains  are  then  perfectly 
intelligible,  if  it  be  supposed  that  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  after  his 
arrival  at  Eome  from  Asia  Minor.  The  only  question  is,  whether 
this  supposition,  that  Paul  was  a  second  time  imprisoned  at  Rome, 
is  a  mere  hypothesis,  or  can  be  sustained  by  any  historical  evidence. 
Were  it  a  mere  conjecture,  it  must  be  admitted,  it  would  be  of  little 
importance. 

There  are  not  wanting,  however,  some  historical  facts  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  confirm  the  supposition.  First,  we  find  it  current  among 
the  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  true,  they  do  not  expressly 
present  historical  grounds  for  their  opinion ;  they  seem  rather  to 
liave  inferred  a  second  imprisonment  at  Rome  from  the  second  Epis- 
tle to  Timothy.  But,  that  they  at  once  assumed  a  second  imprison- 
ment, when  they  might  have  hit  upon  other  modes  of  explanation, 
seems  to  indicate  a  tradition,  however  obscure,  in  regard  to  the  fact 
of  its  having  occurred.  Moreover,  we  are  told  by  a  very  ancient 
writer  of  the  Roman  church,  the  apostolic  Father  Clemens  Romanus, 
that  Paul  went  to  the  farthest  west.  This  must  mean  Spain.  In 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (chap,  xv.)  Paul  expresses  a  strong  de- 
sire to  visit  that  country.  This  he  cannot  have  done  before  his 
first  imprisonment ;  it  is  not  at  all  improbable,  therefore,  that  he 
may  afterwards  have  journeyed  to  this  country,  the  most  western 
region  of  the  then  known  world. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  this  supposition,  so  much  is  clear — 
the  difficulties  with  which  the  attentive  reader  meets  with  in  the 
Epistles,  are  no  arguments  against  their  genuineness.  Indeed  every 
thing  essential  is  in  their  favour.  The  internal  similarity  of  the 
Epistles,  however,  makes  it  probable  that  they  were  composed  about 
the  same  time,  and  the  idea  that  they  were  written  during  the  second 
imprisonment,  of  which  we  have  spoken,  accords  very  well  with  this 
supposition. 
VOL.  I.— 6 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS. 

CHAPTER    VI. 

OF    THE    EPISTLE     TO    THE     HEBREWS 

OF  the  investigations  of  learned  men  respecting  the  genuineness 
of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  hitherto  been  able 
to  give  a  very  favourable  account ;  but  the  case  seems  now  to  be  differ- 
ent, in  considering  the  investigations  respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews. For,  he  who  has  been  accustomed  to  reckon  this  epistle 
among  those  of  Pauline  origin  (the  Lutheran  version,  such  as  it  now 
is,  expressly  attributing  it  to  this  apostle,  although  Luther  himself, 
as  will  be  shown  presently,  held  a  different  opinion),  may  be  sur- 
prised at  hearing  that  the  latest,,  extremely  thorough  and  generally 
impartial,  investigations  respecting  this  important  Epistle,  deter- 
mine that  Paul  was  not  its  author.1  We  have  before  remarked, 
that  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  at  all  in 
question  :  the  only  inquiry  is,  who  was  its  author.  For  he  has  nei- 
ther named  nor  designated  himself  throughout  the  Epistle.  Thus, 
even  though  Paul  should  not  be  considered  the  author,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  Epistle  is  a  forged,  spurious  one. 

Now,  that  the  case  of  this  Epistle  must  be  peculiar,  is  clear 
from  the  fact,  that  it  was  not  admitted  into  the  midst  of  the  other 
Pauline  Epistles.  In  the  Greek  Testament  it  does  indeed  come 
directly  after  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  and  thus  by  the  side  of  the 
collection  of  Paul's  Epistles  (though  Luther  has  placed  it  after  the 
Epistles  of  Peter  and  John)  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  this  large  and  im- 
portant Epistle  would  have  been  placed  among  the  other  large 
Epistles  of  the  same  apostle  to  whole  churches,  perhaps  after  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  had  it  been  originally  regarded  as  a  pro- 
duction of  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles.4  Consequently,  its  position 
after  the  Epistle  of  Philemon,  the  smallest  and  most  inconsiderable 
of  Paul's  private  letters,  shows  plainly,  that  it  was  not  generally 
reckoned  as  one  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  until  after  the  collection  of 
them  was  completed.  However,  all  this  is,  of  course,  of  an  inciden- 
tal nature  ;  there  are  far  more  important  reasons,  which  make  it  im- 
probable that  Paul  was  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ; 
and  to  the  consideration  of  these  we  will  now  direct  our  attention. 

1  But  see  Professor  Stuart's  discussion  of  this  point  in  his  masterly  Commentary  upon 
the  Epistle.  See  also  an  able  discussion  of  it  in  a  .work  published  at  London  in  1830, 
entitled  "  Biblical  Notes  and  Dissertations,  &c.,"  written  by  Joseph  John  Gurney,  an 
Englishman,  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  Mr.  Gurney's  dissertation  was  repub- 
lished  in  the  Biblical  Repository  for  July  1832  (Vol.  II.  p.  409). — TR. 

a  According  to  Epiphanius,  a  church-father  of  the  fourth  century,  some  MSS.  placed 
the  Epistlo  of  the  Hebrews  'before  the  Epistles  to  Timothy ;  probably  only  because  it 
seemed  to  some  copyists  improper  that  an  Epistle  to  a  whole  church  should  stand  after 
Epistles  to  private  individuals. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBKEWS. 

The  form  of  the  Epistle  is,  it  is  seen,  entirely  different  from  that 
of  Paul's  letters.  He  opens  each  of  his  Epistles,  not  only  with  his 
name  and  the  title  of  his  sacred  office,  but  also  with  an  apostolic 
salutation  ;  "  Grace  be  with  you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father, 
and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  to  be  seen  at 
the  commencement  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  begins  like  a 
treatise  (which  indeed  many  have  been  inclined  to  suppose  it  to  be), 
without  any  reference  to  its  readers  :  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  &c."  The  conclusion  bears  more  resemblance  to  Paul's 
Epistles  ;  for  it  contains  a  salutation,  such  as  those  of  the  apostle, 
and  announces  a  visit  to  the  readers  of  the  Epistle  on  the  part  of  the 
author  in  company  with  Timothy.  The  writer  sends  a  salutation 
on  the  part  of  the  brethren  from  Italy  ;  from  whence  it  has  been 
erroneously  inferred  that  the  Epistle  was  written  in  Italy,  whereas 
the  phraseology  indicates  exactly  the  contrary.1  For  the  author 
would  not  have  employed  such  an  expression  unless  he  was  writing 
out  of  Italy  in  a  place  whither  brethren  had  arrived  from  that  coun- 
try. The  Epistle  contains  no  particular  salutations  from  one  indi- 
vidual to  another  ;  but  this  is  not  strange,  as  it  is  addressed  to  so 
many.  For  the  Hebrews,  to  whom  the  Epistle  was  written,  were 
the  Jewish  Christians  who  lived  in  Palestine.  Their  benefit  was  in- 
tended by  the  entire  contents  of  this  profound  Epistle.  It  analyzes 
thoroughly  the  relation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New. 

Nevertheless,  it  may  be  said,  no  great  stress  ought  to  be  laid 
upon  the  external  form  of  the  Epistle  ;  Paul  might  for  once  have 
deviated  from  his  usual  custom.  But  the  historical  evidence  is  very 
decisive  in  regard  to  this  Epistle.  For,  in  the  western  church,  and 
particularly  the  Roman,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  not  at  all 
acknowledged  as  Paul's  production  until  some  time  in  the  fourth 
century.  It  was  through  Augustine's  means,  who  died  so  late  as 
430  A.  D.,  that  it  first  became  common  to  ascribe  it  to  Paul  ;  and 
even  this  Father  of  the  church  sometimes  speaks  doubtfully  of  the 
Epistle,  as  do  other  Fathers  after  his  time.  Plainly  this  is  very  re- 
markable. For,  if  it  be  considered  how  well-known  Paul  was,  and 
how  deeply  loved  at  Rome,  and  that  he  was  twice  imprisoned  there 
for  years,  it  will  be  evident  that  it  must  have  been  known  in  that 
city  whether  Paul  was  its  author  or  not.  Thus  the  testimony  of 
this  Roman  church  is  of  the  highest  importance  in  the  question 


1  The  original  Greek  reads,  ol  and  T%  'IraAtaf,  which  is  translated  in  our  English 
version  "they  of  Italy."  Olshausen  considers  it  necessary  to  translate  d-no/rom,  making 
the  whole  expression  to  mean,  those  who  had  come  from  Italy  to  some  place  where  Paul  was 
writing.  Consultation  of  a  good  Greek  lexicon  will  cause  any  one  to  doubt  whether 
there  is  any  such  necessity  as  Olshausen  supposes.  See,  for  example,  in  Passow,  under 
the  word  dxo,  such  expressions  as,  alfia  and  Tpuuv,  the  blood  of  the  Trojans,  ol  uwd 
HXdruvoc,  they  of  Plato's  party,  &c.  —  Ta. 


1XXX1V  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS. 

under  examination.  Now,  it  is  observable,  that  Clement  of  Rome, 
an  immediate  disciple  of  Paul,  makes  very  ample  use  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  even  introduces  long  passages  of  it  into  his 
own  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  This  is  indeed  a  very  decisive  prool 
of  the  high  antiquity  of  the  Epistle  ;  but  Clement  does  not  men- 
tion the  author  of  the  writing  from  which  he  quoted,  and  therefore 
the  use  he  has  made  of  it  has  no  further  influence  in  regard  to  the 
question,  who  was  its  author.  Still,  he  must  certainly  have  liked 
the  Epistle,  and  esteemed  it  very  highly  ;  otherwise  he  would  not 
have  been  induced  to  embellish  his  own  Epistle  with  large  passages 
from  it,  which  are  interwoven  with  his  train  of  thought,  as  though 
they  were  original. 

That  in  the  West  there  was  general  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the 
author  of  the  Epistle,  is  shown  by  the  circumstance,  that  an  African 
Father  of  the  church,  Tertullian,  names  Barnabas  as  its  author. 
Others,  especially  some  orientals,  ascribe  it  to  Luke,  and  some  to 
the  before-mentioned  Clement,  though  unfortunately  without  good 
reason.  There  was  no  uniform  tradition  in  the  West  in  regard  to 
its  authorship  ;  it  was,  from  conjecture  alone,  ascribed  to  various  in- 
dividuals. 

The  case  was  totally  different  with  the  Greek  church  in  the  East. 
The  predominant  opinion  with  this  was  that  Paul  was  the  author. 
It  was  the  celebrated  Fathers  of  the  Alexandrian  church  especially, 
together  with  the  Syrians,  who  made  great  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  referred  it  to  the  Apostle  Paul.  The  old  Syriac  ver- 
sion contains  it  in  its  canon.  This  circumstance  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked, particularly  as  the  Epistle  is  directed  to  the  Christians  in 
Palestine,  from  whom  of  course  it  fcight  very  easily  come  into  the 
hands  of  the  neighbouring  Syrians  and  Egyptians.  Historical  tes- 
timony, however,  in  favour  of  any  Epistle,  must  be  sought  for  mainly 
in  the  place  where  it  was  composed,  and  that  to  which  it  was  ad- 
dressed. One  of  these  furnishes  evidence  against  the  Pauline  origin 
of  the  Epistle,  and  the  other  in  its  favour  ;  a  circumstance  which, 
as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  is  of  no  slight  consequence  in  an  inquiry 
respecting  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Epistle. 

Although  the  Greek,  and  especially  the  Alexandrian,  Fathers 
were  favourably  disposed  towards  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
learned  among  them  admitted  the  great  difference  between  it  and 
the  other  Epistles  of  Paul  They  explained  this  difference  by  sup- 
posing that  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  in  Hebrew,  and  Luke  translated 
it  into  Greek.  The  Evangelist  was  fixed  upon  as  the  translator, 
because,  as  was  thought,  a  resemblance  was  discovered  between  his 
style  and  that  of  the  Epistle.  The  supposition,  however,  is  not  at 
all  probable  ;  for  the  style  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  so  pecu- 
liarly Greek,  that  it  cannot  have  been  translated  from  the  Hebrew. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE  HEBREWS.  1XXXV 

We  may  see,  merely  from  the  conjecture  thus  presented,  that  inquir- 
ing minds,  in  perusing  the  Epistle,  came  to  doubt  whether  it  was 
really  Pauline  in  its  character,  even  where  it  was  commonly  consid- 
ered as  a  Pauline  production. 

Hence  it  was  that  our  Luther,  when  he  studied  the  Scriptures 
in  a  critical  manner,  renewed  the  doubts  respecting  the  Pauline 
origin  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  after  it  had  been  regarded 
throughout  the  middle  ages  as  the  Apostle  Paul's  production.  He 
writes  on  this  point  as  follows  :  "As  yet,  we  have  mentioned  only 
the  principal,  indubitably  genuine  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  four  following  books,  however,1  have  in  times  past  held  a  dif- 
ferent rank.  And  first,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  St. 
Paul's,  nor  any  apostle's,  is  proved  by  the  tenor  of  v.  3  chap.  ii.  : 
'  How  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation,  which  at  first 
began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them 
that  heard  him/  It  is  clear  that  he  speaks  of  the  apostles  as 
though  he  were  a  disciple,  to  whom  this  salvation  had  come  frorn^ 
the  apostles,  perhaps  long  after."  (See  Walch's  Ed.  Luther's 
Works,  Th.  xiv.  p.  146.)  The  passage  to  which  Luther  refers  is  in- 
deed remarkable,  and  has  been  employed  by  scholars  of  a  more 
recent  day  to  prove  that  Paul  cannot  have  been  the  author  of  the 
Epistle.  For  we  know  that  he  always  maintained  strongly  (partic- 
ularly in  the  ouset  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians),  in  opposition  to 
his  Jewish  adversaries,  who  presumed  to  dispute  his  apostolic  au- 
thority, that  he  was  not  a  disciple  of  the  apostles,  but  had  received 
every  thing  from  the  immediate  revelation  of  God.  How  then  is  it 
conceivable,  that  in  Heb.  ii.  3,  he  should  have  represented  himself 
as  a  disciple  of  the  apostles  ;  and  this  in  an  Epistle  to  Jewish 
Christians,  before  whom  it  was  specially  important  for  him  to  appear 
as  a  real  apostle  of  our  Lord  ?  This  circumstance,  moreover,  that 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  to  Jewish  Christians,  de- 
prives of  all  probability  that  interpretation  of  the  passage  according 
to  which  Paul  speaks  merely  out  of  courtesy,  as  though  he  himself 
was  a  disciple  of  the  apostles,  which  in  reality  was  the  case  only 
with  his  readers.  For  then  Paul  would  have  expressed  himself  in  a 
manner  very  liable  to  be  misapprehended  ;  and  that  this  should 
have  happened  when  his  relation  to  the  Jewish  Christians  was  so 
peculiar,  is  extremely  improbable.  Luther,  with  his  free,  bold  dispo- 
sition, which  did  indeed  sometimes  carry  him  beyond  the  limits  of 
truth  in  his  critical  investigations,  did  not  content  himself  with 
merely  disputing  the  Pauline  origin  of  the  Epistle;  he  even  ven- 
tured to  institute  conjectures  respecting  its  author.  He  regarded 
the  celebrated  Apollos  as  its  author;  the  same  of  whom  mention  is 

1  He  means,  besides  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude, 
and  the  Revelation  of  John. 


1XXXV1  THE   EPISTLE   TO  THE   HEBREWS. 

made  in  the  Acts.  In  truth,  this  supposition  possesses  extreme  pro- 
bability, and  has  therefore,  by  all  the  hypotheses  respecting  the 
author  of  the  Epistle,  recommended  itself  most  even  to  recent  in- 
vestigators. The  book  of  Acts  describes  this  man  as  having  pre- 
cisely that  character  of  mind  which  the  author  of  this  Epistle  must 
have  had,  to  judge  from  its  contents.  He  is  stated  (Acts  xviii.  24) 
to  have  been  by  birth  an  Alexandrian,  an  eloquent  man,  and  mighty 
in  the  Scriptures.  Now,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
shows  himself  to  have  been  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Old 
Testament,  and  eloquently  maintains  the  deep  and  sublime  ideas 
which  it  presents.  According  to  the  same  passage,  he  constantly 
overcame  the  Jews  in  conversation  with  them,  and  proved  publicly, 
by  means  of  the  Scriptures,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Undoubtedly, 
in  these  disputes  he  made  use  of  just  such  forcible  expositions  of 
the  Old  Testament,  as  those  of  which  we  find  so  many  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  and  which  were  very  commonly  employed  by 
the  Alexandrians  in  particular.  The  idea  that  Titus,  or  Luke,  or 
Clement,  might  have  been  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
is  untenable,  for  this  reason,  if  there  were  no  other,  that  these  men 
were  Gentiles  by  birth,  and  the  author  declares  himself  a  native 
JeW!  There  would  be  more  reason  for  fixing  upon  Silas  or  Silvanus, 
who  were,  as  we  know,  Paul's  companions,  or,  likewise,  upon  Bar- 
nabas. For  the  last  we  have  even  one  historical  evidence,  as  we 
have  already  remarked.  A  Father  of  the  church,  Tertullian,  ex- 
pressly ascribes  the  Epistle  to  Barnabas.  But,  as  we  have  an  Epis- 
tle written  by  this  assistant  of  the  apostles,  we  are  able  to  see  from 
it  with  perfect  certainty  that  he  cannot  be  author  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  His  whole  manner  of  writing  and  thinking  is  dif- 
ferent from  the  course  of  ideas  in  this  production.  It  is  true  there 
is  nothing  so  decisive  against  Silas  ;  but,  too,  there  is  nothing 
definite  in  Ms  favour.  His  peculiar  character  of  mind  is  nowhere 
described,  as  the  character  of  Apollos  is  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  idea,  therefore,  that  Silas  was  the  author  of  the  Epistle,  is 
a  wholly  unsupported  conjecture.  It  is  true,  too,  it  is  merely  a  con- 
jecture, that  Apollos  wrote  it ;  but  it  is  a  conjecture  more  probable 
than  could  be  required  or  wished  in  respect  to  opinions  of  any  other 
nature  than  those  in  question. 

But,  though  we  could  assign  the  name  of  the  author,  it  would 
be  of  little  consequence  in  our  investigation.  It  is  sufficient  that 
we  cannot  suppose  Paul  to  have  been  the  author. 

Here,  however,  arises  the  very  difficult  question,  what  we  are  to 
think  of  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Epistle,  if  its  author  was 
not  an  apostle?  for  the  primitive  church  would  not  receive  the  wri- 
tings of  any  but  these  into  the  collection  of  sacred  books;  and  those 
who  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  e.  g.,  the  Koman  church, 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS. 

did  it  for  the  very  reason,  that  they  could  not  admit  Paul  to  have 
been  its  author.  Must  we  then  reject  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or 
at  hast  esteem  it  leas  highly  than  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, because  it  ivas  not  written  by  Paul  ?  This  inquiry  merits 
the  more  careful  consideration,  because  the  contents  of  the  Epis- 
tle are  of  a  very  profound  and  important  nature  to  the  church 
generally,  and  the  evangelical  church  in  particular.  For  the  sacred 
doctrine  of  the  high-priesthood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  is,  in  this  very  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  treated  of  more  at 
length,  and  more  thoroughly,  than  in  any  other  book  of  the  New 
Testament.  Hence,  the  circumstance  that  the  Epistle  is  not  from 
the  pen  of  the  Apostle  Paul  might  give  rise  to  inferences  against  the 
validity  of  the  doctrine  which  this  Epistle  in  particular  inculcates. 

It  must  certainly  be  admitted  that  the  ruling  idea  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  canon  was  to  admit  only  apostolic  productions.  For 
although  Mark  and  Luke,  whose  writings  were  acknowledged  by  the 
whole  church,  were  not  apostles,  they  were  in  intimate  connection 
with  Peter  and  Paul,  and  their  works  were  therefore  regarded  as 
properly  the  productions  of  those  apostles.  And  this  principle  was 
perfectly  correct.  Though  it  must  be  allowed  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
might  exert  its  power  on  others  besides  the  apostles,  and  might  en- 
able them  to  compose  excellent  productions,  still  it  was  wise  in  the 
ancient  church  to  restrict  the  canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which 
was  to  serve  as  the  norm  or  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  for  the  complete 
development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  exclusively  to  apostolic  writings. 
For  the  apostles,  as  most  immediately  connected  with  our  Saviour, 
had  received  into  their  souls  in  the  greatest  abundance  and  purity 
the  Spirit  of  truth  which  flowed  forth  from  him.  The  more  distant 
the  relation  which  individuals  sustained  to  our  Lord,  the  feebler  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  from  above  upon  them,  and  the  more  easily 
might  their  acts  be  affected  by  other  influences.  It  was  therefore 
necessary  that  the  church  should  admit  as  the  norm  of  faith,  only 
such  writings  as  sprang  from  the  most  lively  and  purest  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  it  was  manifested  in  the  apostles.  Otherwise 
there  would  have  been  ground  for  fear  lest  errors,  perhaps  indeed  of 
a  slight  character,  might  have  crept  in,  and  then  been  continued 
from  generation  to  generation  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  propa- 
gated as  of  sacred  authority.  It  was  such  thoughts  undoubtedly 
which  induced  some  learned  men  to  distinguish  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  certain  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  were 
not  adopted  with  perfect  unanimity  by  the  primitive  church,  from 
those  which  were  properly  canonical  and  universally  acknowledged, 
denominating  the  former  deutero-canonical.  They  probably  re- 
garded it  as  possible  that  some  error  had  crept  into  those  books, 
notwithstanding  the  excellence  of  their  contents  generally  ;  and  in 


i  THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS. 

order  to  obviate  the  influence  of  such  errors  they  were  desirous  of 
introducing  an  external  separation  of  these  writings  from  those 
which  were  decidedly  apostolical.  But,  with  regard  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  we  must  say,  that  this  separation  appears  totally 
unfounded.  Probable  as  it  certainly  is,  that  Paul  did  not  compose 
the  Epistle,  it  is  still  certain  that  its  author  wrote  it  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Paul,  and  an  influence  indeed  which  exhibits  itself  still 
more  definitely  than  that  of  the  same  apostle  over  the  writings  of 
Luke,  or  of  Peter  over  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  This  position  is  sus- 
tained by  history,  as  well  as  by  the  contents  of  the  Epistle,  in  the 
most  decisive  manner. 

On  the  score  of  history,  in  the  first  place,  we  cannot,  except  on 
the  supposition  that  Paul  had  an  essential  share  in  the  composition 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  explain  the  remarkable  circumstance 
that  the  entire  oriental  church  attributed  it  to  the  apostle.  This 
view  continued  to  prevail  in  the  East,  even  after  it  was  very  well 
known  that  the  western  churches,  particularly  that  of  Borne,  held  a 
different  opinion.  The  tradition,  that  Paul  was  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  cannot  have  rested  on  mere  conjecture, 
since  there  was  in  fact  much  in  the  Epistle  itself  which  constrained 
learned  men,  who  in  the  main  shared  the  prevalent  opinion  respect- 
ing the  author  of  the  Epistle,  to  resort  to  expedients  for  the  pur- 
pose of  upholding  the  general  idea  that  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle,  and 
at  the  same  time  of  solving  the  difficulties  which  this  supposition 
involved.  Such  an  expedient,  for  example,  was  the  idea,  of  which 
we  have  before  spoken,  that  Paul  might  have  written  the  Epistle  in 
Hebrew,  so  that  we  have  only  a  translation  of  it.  Let  it  be  consid- 
ered, too,  that  this  opinion  of  the  Pauline  origin  of  the  Epistle  pre- 
vailed in  the  very  countries  to  which  its  original  readers  belonged  ; 
and  then  no  one  will  doubt  that  the  only  mode  of  explaining  it  is,  to 
suppose  Paul  to  have  cooperated  in  the  composition  of  the  Epistle, 
and  the  first  readers  of  it  to  have  been  aware  of  the  fact,  and  on  this 
account  to  have  referred  the  Epistle  to  Paul  himself. 

To  this  is  to  be  added,  the  character  of  the  Epistle  itself.  For, 
although  the  ancient  observation,  that  the  style  of  the  Epistle  is  not 
Pauline,  is  perfectly  well  founded,  still  the  tenor  of  the  ideas  bears 
a  resemblance,  which  is  not  to  be  mistaken,  to  the  writings  of  the 
great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  If  we  merely  keep  in  mind,  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians,  while 
the  other  Pauline  Epistles  were  all  of  them1  written  to  churches  the 
majority  of  whose  members  were  Gentiles,  we  shall  not  discover  the 
least  thing  in  the  Epistle  which  could  not  have  proceeded  from  the 

1  Though  the  expression  is  thus  general  in  the  original,  of  course  only  those  Epistles 
which  are  directed  to  churches  can  be  here  referred  to.  The  phraseology  is  exception- 
able, as  some  of  Paul's  letters  are  not  directed  to  churches  at  all  but  to  individuals. — TK. 


THE  CATHOLIC   EPISTLES. 

mind  of  Paul.  Indeed,  the  main  doctrine  of  the  great  apostle,  that 
in  the  death  of  Jesus  an  offering  of  reconciliation  was  made  for  the 
whole  world,  that  with  and  through  it  all  the  ceremonial  observances 
of  the  Old  Testament  first  obtained  their  fulfilment  as  types  of  what 
was  to  come,  forms  the  central  point  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
If  it  be  further  considered,  that  there  was  always  a  certain  distance 
of  demeanor  between  the  Apostle  Paul  and  the  Jewish  Christians, 
even  the  best  of  them,  it  will  be  very  easy  to  understand  why  Paul 
did  not  write  to  them  himself ;  and  still,  it  must  have  been  his 
heart's  desire  to  exhibit  clearly  and  in  suitable  detail  his  views  in 
regard  to  the  law  and  its  relation  to  Christianity,  which  were  of  a 
profound  nature,  and  drawn  directly  from  the  genuine  spirit  of  the 
Gospel.  What  more  obvious  mode  of  presenting  these  to  the  He- 
brews, than  through  the  medium  of  a  disciple  or  faithful  friend, 
who,  like  Apollos,  had  a  correct  apprehension  of  this  relation  be- 
tween the  old  and  new  covenant. 

Supposing  this  to  have  been  the  state  of  the  case,  all  the  circum- 
stances in  regard  to  the  Epistle  are  explained.  In  the  West  it  was 
known  that  Paul  did  not  write  the  Epistle.  On  this  account  the 
western  church  denied  that  he  was  the  author,  without  being  able, 
however,  to  designate  any  other  individual  as  the  author.  In  the 
East,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  known  that  he  had  an  influence  in 
the  composition  of  the  Epistle  ;  and  moreover  his  spirit  and  his 
ideas  were  recognized  in  it.  In  the  East,  therefore,  it  was  much 
used  ;  in  the  West  less.  In  our  days  we  may  impartially  admit 
that  Paul  was  not  the  writer  of  the  Epistle,  and  still  maintain  its 
perfect  canonical  authority,  since  the  apostle  certainly  exerted  an 
essential  influence  over  its  composition. 

Thus,  though  this  Epistle  belongs  to  the  class  of  those  which 
have  not  the  unanimous  voice  of  Christian  antiquity  in  favour  of 
their  apostolic  origin,  still  it  can  be  shown  that  this  want  of  agree- 
ment did  not  arise  from  any  really  suspicious  state  of  things,  but 
was  occasioned  merely  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  composed. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

OF   THE   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES. 

IT  has  already  been  observed,  in  the  first  chapter,  that  in  early 
times  the  third  collection  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  was 
termed  that  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles.  The  Greek  word  Catholic 
means  general,  in  oppostion  to  particular.  Now,  as  the  church 
general,  in  opposition  to  individual  heretical  parties,  was  termed 


XC  THE   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES. 

Catholic,  so  the  same  expression  was  used  to  denote  those  writings 
which,  as  universally  acknowledged  and  used,  it  was  designed  to  dis- 
tinguish from  those  which  were  current  only  in  particular  circles. 

The  fact  that  those  writings,  which,  in  addition  to  the  collections 
called  the  Gospel  and  the  Apostle,  were  acknowledged  to  be  genuine 
and  apostolical,  were  thus  united  into  one  separate  collection,  pro- 
duced this  advantage,  that  it  became  thus  more  difficult  ever  to  con- 
found them  with  the  many  apochryphal  writings  which  were  spread 
abroad  in  the  ancient  church.  In  regard  to  the  origin  of  this  third 
collection,  however,  there  is  an  obscurity  which  can  never  be  entirely 
dissipated.  At  the  end  of  the  third  and  commencement  of  the  fourth 
century,  the  collection  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles  first  appears  in 
history  ;  but  who  formed  it,  and  where  it  originated,  we  do  not  know. 
It  is  impossible,  however,  that  it  should  have  been  accidentally 
formed,  as  the  position  of  the  Epistles  is  too  peculiar  for  us  to  sup- 
pose this.  The  Epistle  of  James,  which  was  by  no  means  unani- 
mously regarded  as  apostolic,  holds  the  first  place  in  the  collection, 
while  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  first  of  John,  which  have 
always  been  regarded  as  of  apostolic  authority,  come  afterward. 
This  very  order  of  the  seven  Epistles,  however,  suggests  to  us,  by 
the  way,  a  probable  supposition  as  to  the  place  where  the  collection 
of  these  Catholic  Epistles  must  have  originated.  James,  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  of  James  in  the  canon,  nowhere  possessed  a  higher 
reputation  than  in  Palestine  and  Syria  ;  for  he  was  a  cousin,  i.  e.} 
according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  speaking,  a  brother  to  our  Lord, 
and  at  the  same  time  bishop  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  head 
of  the  Jewish  Christians,  as  we  shall  presently  show  more  at  length. 
In  the  same  countries,  Peter  was  held  in  high  estimation,  as  the 
one  among  our  Lord's  apostles  to  whom,  in  particular,  was  commit- 
ted the  preaching  of  the  G-ospel  among  the  Jews.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  collection  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  originated  in 
Palestine  or  Syria,  and,  out  of  veneration  for  the  brother  of  our 
Lord,  and  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  the  author  of  the  collection 
gave  to  the  Epistle  of  James  the  first  place,  and  put  those  of  Peter 
next.  The  Epistles  of  John  had  less  interest  for  him,  on  account  of 
his  Judaising  sentiments,  and  the  Epistle  of  Jude  he  placed  at  the 
very  end.  The  supposition  we  have  made  finds  confirmation  in  the 
fact,  that  a  father  of  the  Palestinian  church,  Eusebius,  bishop  of 
Caesarea,  gives  us  the  first  certain  account  of  the  existence  of  a  col- 
lection of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles. 

From  the  various  character  of  the  writings  classed  together  in 
the  collection,  we  may  see  clearly  its  late  origin  ;  for  it  has  already 
been  mentioned  above  (chap,  i.),  that  the  first  Epistles  of  John  and 
that  of  Peter  were  originally,  as  being  very  ancient  and  universally- 
admitted  writings,  connected  with  the  apostle,  so  called,  i.  e.}  the 


THE   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  XCJ 

collection  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  At  a  later  period,  in  order  to 
leave  these  latter  by  themselves,  the  two  Epistles  were  taken  from 
the  collection  of  Pauline  writings  and  classed  with  the  five  other 
apostolic  Epistles.  These  last,  however,  belonged  to  the  number 
of  those  which  were  universally  admitted  in  primitive  times,  and 
thus  Antilegomena  and  Homologoumena  were  introduced  into  one 
and  the  same  collection.  Still  there  arose  from  this  procedure  one 
advantage,  viz.,  that  the  Epistles  of  the  same  author  were,  as  was 
proper,  brought  together.  Luther,  with  his  excellent  tact,  correctly 
felt  that  the  collection  of  the  Catholic  Epistles  unsuitably  confound- 
ed writings  which  were  universally  admitted  with  those  which  were 
not,  and  therefore  placed  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  John  immedi- 
ately after  those  of  Paul,  and  then  at  the  end,  after  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  letters  of  James  and  Jude,  and  the  Eevelation  of 
John.  Still,  this  did  not  wholly  do  away  with  the  impropriety,  as 
the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  also  had  been  disputed  with  special  zeal. 
Had  he,  however,  placed  this  Epistle  likewise  at  the  end  of  the 
New  Testament,  along  with  the  other  Antilegomena,  he  must  have 
disturbed  too  much  the  old  accustomed  arrangement.  He  left  it, 
therefore,  and  also  the  two  smaller  Epistles  of  John,  in  connection 
with  the  first  and  main  Epistle  of  the  two  apostles.  It  is  to  be  con- 
sidered, too,  that  the  bearing  of  the  arrangement  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books  upon  our  critical  inquiries  is  of  but  secondary  considera- 
tion ;  the  main  point  is  their  internal  character,  and  in  reference  to 
this  no  fault  can  be  found  with  the  original  arrangement. 

In  regard,  therefore,  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  generally,  little 
further  can  be  said.  Of  the  Epistles  individually,  we  will  consider 
first  the  three  Epistles  of  John.  As  to  the  first,  and  main  Epistle, 
it,  like  the  Gospel  of  John,  was  always  regarded  by  the  ancient 
church  as  the  production  of  the  Evangelist  of  that  name.  In  mo- 
dern times,  it  is  true,  doubts  have  been  started  in  relation  to  the 
Gospel.  But  the  principal  writer  by  whom  they  have  been  sug- 
gested has  himself  since  retracted  them.  Indeed,  it  was  nothing  but 
the  very  striking  similarity  in  style  and  ideas  between  the  Gospel 
and  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  which  made  it  necessary,  almost, 
whether  one  would  or  no,  to  extend*the  opposition  against  the  Gos- 
pel to  the  Epistle  likewise  ;  for  one  cannot  but  suppose  them  both 
to  have  had  the  same  author,  from  their  resemblance  in  every  pecu- 
liar characteristic.  If,  therefore,  the  Epistle  were  admitted  to  have 
been  written  by  the  Evangelist  John,  the  Gospel  also  could  not  but 
be  attributed  to  him.  But  though  there  may  have  been  a  some- 
what plausible  reason  for  disputing  the  Gospel,  in  the  idea  that  the 
Saviour  is  represented  by  John  very  differently  from  the  exhibition 
of  him  in  the  other  Gospels,  in  regard  to  the  Epistle  there  is  no 
reason  which  possesses  the  slightest  plausibility  for  disputing  it.  On 


THE   CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 

the  supposition  that  it  is  spurious,  the  error  of  the  whole  ancient 
church  in  referring  it,  without  contradiction,  to  the  Evangelist  John, 
would  be  completely  inexplicable,  especially  if  we  carefully  compare 
the  history  of  the  Epistle  with  that  of  the  Evangelist.  John,  as  we 
have  before  remarked,  lived  the  longest  of  all  the  apostles,  viz.,  till 
some  time  in  the  reign  of  Domitian,  and  he  resided  at  Ephesus,  in 
Asia  Minor.  From  no  country  within  the  limits  of  the  church, 
therefore,  could  we  expect  to  receive  more  accurate  accounts  in  re- 
gard to  the  writings  of  the  beloved  disciple  of  our  Lord,  than  from 
those  of  Asia  Minor.  Now,  it  is  from  these  very  countries  that  we 
receive  the  most  ancient  testimonies  in  behalf  of  the  existence  and 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle.  Instead  of  mentioning  all,  I  will  name 
but  two  of  these  testimonies,  which,  however,  are  so  decisive,  that 
we  can  perfectly  well  dispense  with  all  the  rest.  The  first  is  pre- 
sented by  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  in  Phrygia,  whom  we  have 
already  mentioned.  This  man  lived,  as  has  been  before  said,  at  the 
end  of  the  first  century  and  beginning  of  the  second,  in  the  imme- 
diate vicinity  of  Ephesus,  where  the  Evangelist  John  laboured  so 
long  and  so  successfully.  He  knew  not  only  the  Evangelist  John, 
but  other  immediate  disciples  of  our  Lord,  who  were  probably  of  the 
number  of  the  seventy,  particularly  a  certain  Aristion,  and  another 
John,  surnamed  the  Presbyter.  Now,  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  such 
a  man,  who  had  at  his  command  so  many  means  of  arriving  at  cer- 
tainty respecting  John's  writings,  could  possibly  be  deceived  in  re- 
gard to  them  ?  We  must,  indeed,  renounce  all  historical  testimony, 
if  we  deny  this  witness  the  capacity  to  speak  in  behalf  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  Epistle  of  John. 

The  second  testimony,  however,  is  of  equal  importance.  One 
of  the  apostolic  fathers,  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  in  Asia  Minor, 
makes  use  of  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  in  the  same  way  as  Papias, 
as  though  it  was  admitted  to  be  a  genuine  production  of  the  Evan- 
gelist. Now  Polycarp  lived  till  after  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  at  the  age  of  eighty-six  died  a  martyr's  death  in  the 
flames.  He  had  not  merely  become  acquainted  with  John  in  the 
neighbouring  city  of  Ephesus,  but  had  even  heard  him  preach  the 
way  of  salvation,  and  was  his  faithful  disciple.  The  testimony  of 
such  a  man,  therefore,  is  likewise  above  all  cavil,  and  is  especially 
confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  there  never  has  been,  in  later  times,  any 
general  opinion  against  its  genuineness,  either  in  the  Catholic 
church,  or  among  the  adherents  to  any  particular  sect.  Against 
this  weight  of  historical  evidence,  therefore,  nothing  can  be  effected 
by  the  mere  conjectures  of  modern  times  ;  and  at  present  all  theo- 
logians are  perfectly  agreed  in  the  acknowledgment  of  this  precious 
relic  of  the  beloved  disciple  of  Jesus,  his  first  Epistle. 

If,  in  regard  to  the  second  and  third  Epistles  of  John,  such  per- 


THE   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  XC1U 

feet  agreement  of  the  ancient  church  in  recognizing  their  genuine- 
ness cannot  be  asserted,  the  reason  of  this  lies  entirely  in  a  circum- 
stance, which  also  occasioned  the  tardy  insertion  of  the  pastoral 
letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus  in  the  collection  of  Pauline  Epistles, 
viz.,  that  they  are  directed  to  private  persons,  and  moreover  are  of 
no  very  great  extent  or  very  important  contents,  and  thus  awakened 
less  interest  in  their  diffusion. 

The  second  Epistle  of  John  is  addressed  to  a  Christian  lady  and 
her  family  ;  the  third  to  a  Christian  friend  named  Gaius.  Of  the 
private  circumstances  of  these  two  persons  we  know  nothing  hut 
what  is  indicated  in  the  letters.  Now,  although  certainly  these  two 
smaller  Epistles  afford  no  important  information  respecting  the 
Gospel,  or  the  history  of  the  ancient  church,  still,  as  estimable  lega- 
cies of  the  disciple  who  lay  in  Jesus'  bosom,  they  deserve  a  place 
in  the  canon  as  much  as  Paul's  Epistle  to  Philemon.  The  oldest 
fathers  of  the  church  express  no  doubt  in  regard  to  the  two  Epistles. 
Only  at  a  later  period  do  we  find  certain  individuals  entertaining 
doubts  whether  these  two  Epistles  were  written  by  John  the  Evan- 
gelist. No  one  regarded  them  as  forged  in  the  name  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, for  we  can  by  no  means  perceive  for  what  purpose  these 
Epistles  could,  in  such  a  case,  have  been  written.  They  aim  at  no 
particular  object,  but  are  merely  expressive  of  the  tenderest  Chris- 
tian love.  Many,  however,  believed  that  another  John,  viz.,  John 
the  Presbyter,  before  mentioned,  with  whom  Papias  was  acquainted, 
was  the  author  of  the  Epistles.  This  view  appeared  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that,  in  the  salutations  of  both  Epistles,  John  expressly 
terms  himself  Presbyter;  and  as,  moreover,  the  other  John  likewise 
lived  in  Ephesus,  it  is  possible  they  might  have  been  confounded. 
But  in  modern  times  these  doubts  in  regard  to  the  apostolic  cha- 
racter of  the  two  small  Epistles  have  been  disregarded,  because  the 
style  and  the  sentiments  of  both  Epistles  are  so  entirely  similar  to 
the  style  and  course  of  thought  in  the  Gospel  and  the  first  Epistle, 
that  the  idea  of  a  different  author  is  totally  untenable.  Moreover, 
we  are  able  to  show  how  John  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist  might  also 
call  himself  Presbyter.  This  expression  is  nearly  equivalent  to  the 
Latin  Senior,  or  the  German  ^Elteste.1  In  the  Jewish  synagogues, 
and  also  among  the  primitive  Christians,  it  was  applied  to  the  prin- 
cipal persons  in  the  church  (cornp.  Acts  xx.  17),  and  was  at  first 
used  in  this  sense  as  exactly  synonymous  with  Episcopos,  i.  e., 
bishop.  In  Asia  Minor,  as  we  know  from  the  writings  of  Papias, 
there  prevailed  a  peculiar  custom  of  speaking,  by  which  the  apostles 
were  called,  as  it  were  by  way  of  distinction,  elders.  Whether  the 
intention  was  thereby  to  denote  the  great  age  of  the  apostles,  or 
whether  all  the  churches  were  regarded  as  forming  one  general 

• 

1  Or  the  English  elder,  as  it  is  translated  in  our  version. — TH. 


XC1Y  THE   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES. 

church,  and  the  apostles  as  their  presbyters,  is  doubtful.  It  is  suffi- 
cient that  the  apostles  were  thus  termed,1  by  way  of  eminence,  for 
in  this  fact  is  exhibited  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  inscriptions 
to  the  second  and  third  Epistles  of  John.  Thus  the  case  is  the 
same  with  these  two  Epistles  as  with  that  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
primitive  church  adopted  them,  but  not  without  opposition,  and 
therefore  we  must  reckon  them  among  the  Antilegomena  ;  but  still 
the  reasons  which  were  addressed  against  their  apostolic  origin  may 
be  so  thoroughly  refuted  that  not  a  shadow  of  uncertainty  can 
reasonably  remain  in  regard  to  them. 

The  fourth  of  the  seven  Catholic  Epistles  is  the  first  Epistle  of 
the  Apostle  Peter.  As  we  have  now  come  to  the  consideration  of 
the  Petrine  writings  in  the  canon,  the  question  forces  itself  upon  us, 
how  is  it  to  be  explained  that  we  have  so  few  productions  of  Peter, 
and  so  many  of  Paul,  who  was  called  latest  to  be  an  apostle. 
When  we  consider  what  our  Lord  said  to  Peter  :  "  Thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it"  (Matth.  xvi.  18),  and  afterwards  : 
"  Feed  my  lambs"  (John  xxi.  15  seq.),  it  must  seem  strange  that 
the  powers  of  this  rock  of  the  church  should  have  been  exerted  so 
little  in  writings  for  posterity.  It  is  true  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is 
properly  Peter's  Gospel,  as  we  have  seen  ;  but  even  this  falls  into 
the  back-ground  by  the  side  of  Luke  (the  Pauline  Gospel),  and  the 
other  Gospels,  so  that  Peter  according  to  the  representation  of  him- 
self in  his  writings,  constantly  appears  insignificant  compared  with 
Paul. 

This  fact  finds  a  satisfactory  explanation  only  in  the  relation  of 
the  two  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  to  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  general.  In  reference  to  this,  they  had  different  destinations. 
Peter,  with  the  twelve,  was  called  particularly  to  the  dissemination 
of  the  Gospel  among  the  Jews.  Had  the  Jewish  nation  acknowl- 
edged Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  Peter  would  then  have  exhibited 
himself  in  all  his  dignity  and  consequence.  But  that  unhappy  na- 
tion hardened  itself  against  all  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
Gospel  was  carried  to  the  Gentiles,  because  Israel  rejected  the  grace 
to  which  it  was  called.  Paul  was  set  apart  for  the  express  purpose 
of  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  (Acts  xxvi.  17),  and,  as  Christianity 
first  displayed  itself  in  a  flourishing  condition  among  them,  all  the 
other  apostles,  with  the  exception  of  John  alone,  fell  into  the  back- 
ground in  comparison  with  Paul,  both  in  oral  discourse,  as  appears 
from  the  Acts,  and  in  these  written  efforts,  as  is  shown  by  the  New 
Testament  canon.  It  is,  consequently,  not  at  all  strange  that  Peter 
should  be  represented  by  two  Epistles  of  so  small  a  size,  and  that 
the  second  of  these  is,  moreover,  the  most  disputed  book  in  the 

1  I*eter  calls  himself  in  his  first  Epistle,  a  feUow-elder  (1  Pet.  v.  1). 


THE  CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  XCV 

whole  New  Testament  canon.  His  being  thrown  into  the  shade  by 
Paul  is  rather  in  accordance  with  the  facts  respecting  the  extension 
of  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth  in  the  times  of  the  apostles. 

As  to  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  we  have  before  seen  that  it  be- 
longs among  the  Homologoumena,  along  with  the  first  Epistle  of 
John.  In  all  Christian  antiquity  there  was  no  one  who  doubted  the 
genunineness  of  the  Epistle,  or  had  heard  of  doubts  respecting  it. 
And  yet  the  Epistle  (1  Pet.  i.  1)  is  addressed  to  the  Christian 
churches  in  Asia  Minor,  where  Christianity  early  gained  great  suc- 
cess, and  where  a  lively  intercourse  was  maintained  between  the  in- 
dividual churches.  Here,  of  necessity,  must  have  arisen  soon  an 
opposition  to  this  Epistle,  if  it  had  not  been  known  that  Peter  had 
sent  a  circular  letter  to  the  churches.  Now,  the  oldest  fathers  of 
the  church  in  Asia  Minor,  Papias  and  Polycarp,  both  made  use  of 
the  Epistle  of  Peter,  as  well  as  that  of  John,  as  a  genuine  apostolic 
production.  This  Epistle  of  Peter  does  not  seem  to  have  made  its 
way  to  Italy  till  a  late  period.  At  least  it  is  wanting  in  the  very 
ancient  catalogue  cited  by  Muratori,  which  probably  exhibits  the 
canon  of  the  early  Eoman  church.  We  can  infer  nothing,  however, 
from  this  absence  against  the  genuineness  of  the  first  Epistle  of 
Peter,  since  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  its  having  been  dis- 
puted in  the  first  three  centuries.  Yet,  in  modern  times,  this  de- 
cided declaration  of  Christian  antiquity  has  been  thought  insufficient. 
An  objection  has  been  founded  on  the  circumstance  that  Peter  writes 
from  Babylon  (1  Pet.  v.  13),  while  history  does  not  relate  that  he 
was  ever  in  Babylon  ;  as  also  upon  the  fact  that  he  directs  the  at- 
tention of  his  readers  to  sufferings  and  persecutions  which  they 
should  endure  (1  Pet.  i.  6  ;  iii.  16  ;  iv.  12  seq.]  v.  10),  referring,  as 
is  supposed,  to  Nero's  persecutions,  while  he  himself,  it  is  said,  died 
at  Home  during  this  persecution,  and  therefore  could  not  have  ad- 
dressed an  Epistle  from  Babylon  to  those  who  suffered  under  it. 
Both  these  remarks,  however,  are  easily  obviated.  As  to  the  first, 
respecting  the  city  of  Babylon,  we  know  too  little  of  the  history  of 
Peter  to  be  able  to  determine  in  what  places  he  may  have  been, 
and  in  what  not  ;  particularly  as  there  were  several  cities  of  this 
name  in  the  ancient  world,  and  it  is  not  specified  which  is  meant  in 
the  Epistle.  It  is  to  be  observed,  too,  that  many  of  the  fathers  of 
the  church  understood  the  name  Babylon  to  mean  mystically  the 
city  of  Home,  which  showed  itself  the  enemy  of  our  Lord  in  the 
persecution  of  the  faithful  (Comp.  Kev.  xviii.  2).  If  this  expo- 
sition be  adopted,  the  second  remark  also  is  at  once  obviated  ;  for, 
in  that  case,  the  Epistle  was  written  by  Peter  in  Rome  itself  during 
the  persecution,  and  he  gave  the  believers  in  Asia  Minor  Christian 
exhortations  in  reference  to  such  a  grievous  period  among  them. 
Yet,  as  this  explanation  cannot  be  proved  to  be  correct,  we  set  it 


XCV1  THE   SECOND   EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

aside,  and  merely  observe,  that  in  whatever  Babylon  Peter  may 
have  written  his  Epistle,  his  residence  there  can  be  easily  reconciled 
with  the  exhortations  which  the  Epistle  contains.  For,  though 
these  may  be  referred  to  the  persecution  of  Nero,  they  may  be  un- 
derstood with  equal  propriety  as  referring  to  any  other  persecution, 
since  all  individual  characteristics,  which  could  suit  only  this 
first  cruel  persecution  of  the  church,  are  entirely  wanting.  Such 
general  sufferings  as  these  which  Peter  mentions  must  be  supposed 
to  have  been  endured  by  the  church  everywhere  and  at  all  times, 
as  it  is  always  comprehended  in  the  very  idea  of  a  believer  that  he 
should  excite  opposition  in  those  who  are  of  a  worldly  inclination, 
and  thus  cause  a  combat.  A  more  important  objection  than  these 
two  remarks  is,  that  the  style  and  ideas  of  the  first  Epistle  of 
Peter  exhibit  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  style  and  ideas  of  Paul 
This  cannot  be  denied,  for  it  is  too  evident  not  to  be  observed  ;  but 
it  does  not  serve  its  intended  purpose,  viz.,  to  deprive  Peter  of  the 
authorship  of  the  Epistle.  Notwithstanding  all  its  similarity  to 
Paul's  manner,  it  still  maintains  enough  independence  and  peculiar- 
ity to  stamp  it  as  the  production  of  a  man  who  thought  for  himself. 
As  moreover,  when  Peter  wrote  this  Epistle,  he  was  connected  (1 
Pet.  v.  12)  with  the  old  friend  and  companion  of  Paul,  Sylvanus 
(or,  as  abbreviated,  Silas),  nothing  is  more  easy  than  to  suppose  that 
Peter  dictated  to  the  latter,  and  in  all  probability  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  which  alone  seems  to  have  been  perfectly  familiar  to  him. 
In  translating  into  Greek,  Sylvanus,  who,  from  long  intimacy  with 
Paul,  had  become  very  much  habituated  to  his  diction,  may  have 
adopted  many  of  its  characteristics,  and  thus  have  been  the  occasion 
of  the  somewhat  Pauline  colouring  which  the  Epistle  possesses. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

OF  THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER. 

IN  regard  to  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  its  case  is  very  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  first.  The  former  has  always  been  so  violent- 
ly attacked,  and  suspected  on  such  plausible  grounds  of  not  having 
been  written  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  that  criticism  is  encompassed 
with  as  much  difficulty  in  relation  to  it  as  in  relation  to  any  other 
book  of  the  New  Testament.  And,  moreover,  such  is  the  state  of 
the  matter,  that  the  critical  investigation  of  this  Epistle  is  of  par- 
ticular importance.  For,  as  we  remarked  in  Chapter  I.,  while,  in 
regard  to  many  writings  of  the  New  Testament  (e.  g.,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  the  second  and  third  Epistles  of  John),  the  question 


THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER.  XCV11 

is,  not  so  much  whether  they  are  genuine  or  spurious,  as  who  was 
their  author,  in  regard  to  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  question 
is,  in  truth,  whether  the  Apostle  Peter  composed  it,  or  some  other 
Peter,  or  somebody  of  another  name,  who  meant  no  harm,  but  still 
purposely  endeavoured  to  deceive  his  readers  into  the  belief  that  it 
was  written  by  Simon  Peter,  the  Apostle  of  our  Lord.  In  the  first 
place,  the  -author  of  the  Epistle  not  only  expressly  appropriates 
Peter's  name  and  title,  "  Simon  Peter,  a  servant  and  apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ"  (2  Pet.  i.  1),  but  he  also  states  particulars  respecting 
his  own  life,  which  can  have  been  true  only  of  Peter.  He  says,  for 
instance,  "  For  we  have  not  followed  cunningly-devised  fables,  when 
we  made  known  unto  you  the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  were  eye-witnesses  of  his  majesty.  For  he  received 
from  God  the  Father  honour  and  glory,  when  there  came  such  a 
voice  to  him  from  the  excellent  glory,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased.  And  this  voice,  which  came  from  heaven, 
we  heard,  when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount,"  (2  Pet.  i.  16 
— 18).  These  words,  it  is  clear,  refer  to  the  transfiguration  on  the 
mount  (Matt.  xvii.  1,  seq.)  But,  besides  James  and  John,  the  two 
sons  of  Zebedee,  no  one  was  a  spectator  of  this  transfiguration  ex- 
cept the  Apostle  Peter.  If,  therefore,  the  Apostle  Peter  was  not 
the  author  of  this  letter,  the  man  who  not  only  presumed  to  take 
upon  himself  the  name  of  an  apostle,  but  designedly  endeavoured  to 
make  his  readers  think  that  he  was  the  Apostle  Peter,  must  have 
been  a  downright  shameless  imposter  ;  and  his  production  should  by 
no  means  retain  its  place  in  the  canon,  but  it  is  necessary  that  it 
should  be  at  once  thrust  out  of  it. 

It  is  for  this  very  reason,  viz.,  because  the  necessity  of  which  we 
have  spoken  has  been  sensibly  felt,  that  the  friends  of  the  work  have 
so  zealously  prosecuted  the  investigation  respecting  it ;  though  cer- 
tainly not  always  with  due  impartiality  and  coolness.  It  has  been 
forgotten  that  in  truth  very  important  objections  may  be  urged 
against  the  Petrine  origin  of  this  second  Epistle,  and  it  has  been 
attempted  to  establish  its  genuineness  as  firmly  and  incontrovertibly 
as  it  is  possible  to  establish  that  of  other  writings.  The  best 
weapon,  however,  which  can  be  used  in  defence  of  God's  word,  is 
always  truth ;  and  this  compels  us  to  admit  that  it  is  impossible  to 
attain  so  firm  and  certain  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  as  of  that  of  other  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  certainly  the  opponents  of  the  Epistle  err  greatly  when  they 
assert  that  the  spuriousness  of  the  Epistle  can  be  fully  established. 
Such  an  assertion  cannot  but  be  denied  with  all  earnestness,  even 
though,  as  is  often  the  case,  it  be  connected  with  the  opinion,  that 
the  Epistle  may  notwithstanding  retain  its  place  in  the  canon  as 
hitherto,  and  be  cited  by  preachers  of  the  Gospel  in  their  pulpit  in- 
VOL.  L— 7 


XCV111  THE    SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER. 

structions.  Such  lax  notions  must  be  resisted  with  the  utmost 
moral  sternness.  For,  would  it  not  be  participating  in  the  fraud  of 
the  author  of  the  Epistle,  were  we  to  treat  it  as  the  genuine  pro- 
duction of  the  Apostle  Peter,  while  we  consider  it  as  spurious  !  If 
it  be  really  spurious,  and  can  be  proved  to  have  gained  its  place  in 
the  canon  only  through  mistake,  then  let  it  be  removed  from  the 
collection  of  the  sacred  writings,  which  from  its  nature  excludes 
every  fraudulent  production.  Christian  truth  would  not  at  all  suffer 
by  the  removal  of  a  single  work  of  so  slight  extent. 

We  are  convinced,  however,  that  no  such  step  is  necessary. 
The  most  prominent  error  in  the  critical  investigation  of  this  Epistle 
has  been,  that  writers  have  always  striven  to  prove  beyond  objec- 
tion either  the  genuineness  or  spuriousness  of  the  production.  It 
has  been  forgotten  that  between  these  two  positions  there  was  a 
medium,  viz.,  an  impossibility  of  satisfactorily  proving  either.  It 
cannot  seem  at  all  strange  that  this  impossibility  should  exist  in  in- 
vestigations respecting  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  if  it  be  con- 
sidered for  a  moment  how  difficult  it  often  is  to  determine  respect- 
ing the  genuineness  of  a  production  even  shortly  after,  or  at  the  very 
time  of,  its  composition,  if  from  any  circumstance  the  decisive  points 
in  the  investigation  have  remained  concealed.  As  in  regard  to  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  it  is  entirely  impossible  to 
come  to  any  decided  result,  so  it  seems  to  me  probable,  that  the  de- 
ficiency of  historical  evidence  makes  it  impossible  to  come  to  a  fixed 
conclusion  in  regard  to  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter.  It  is  certain 
there  are  several  circumstances  which  give  rise  to  reasonable  doubts 
respecting  the  origin  of  the  Epistle  ;  still,  so  much  may  be  adduced, 
not  only  in  refutation  of  them,  but  in  the  way  of  positive  argu- 
ment for  the  Epistle,  that  these  doubts  are  neutralized.  Only,  the 
favourable  points  do  not  amount  to  a  complete,  objectively  valid 
proof,  and  therefore  a  critical  investigation  of  the  Epistle  does  not 
result  exclusively  to  its  advantage.  Now  this  is  certainly  a  very 
unpleasant  result,  and  one  satisfactory  to  neither  party,  for  men 
commonly  wish  every  thing  to  be  decided  in  an  absolute  manner, 
and  therefore  would  have  the  Epistle  declared  positively  either 
genuine  or  spurious.  But  the  main  object  should  be  the  truth,  and 
not  an  agreeable  result ;  and  faithful,  impartial  examination  leads 
us  to  the  conclusion  that  in  fact  no  perfect  proof  is  to  be  obtained 
in  regard  to  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter.  This  conclusion  affords  us 
the  advantage,  that  we  may  with  a  good  conscience  leave  the  Epistle 
in  its  place  among  the  canonical  books,  since  it  cannot  rightfully  be 
deprived  of  it  until  its  spuriousness  is  decisively  proved.  Now, 
whether  it  shall  or  shall  not  be  used  in  doctrinal  argument,  must  be 
left  to  the  judgment  of  each  individual ;  but  at  any  rate  no  one  can 
prohibit  its  use  so  long  as  its  spuriousness  remains  unproved. 


THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER.  XC1X 

It  is  time,  however,  to  consider  more  closely  all  that  can  be 
urged  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle,  and  to  present  there- 
with the  counter  considerations  which  either  invalidate  the  former 
or  argue  the  apostolic  composition  of  the  Epistle.  Now  the  most 
important  circumstance  which  presents  itself  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  book  is,  that  it  was  to  such  a  degree  unknown  in  Chris- 
tian antiquity.  Not  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries 
mentions  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter ;  they  all  speak  of  but  one 
Epistle  from  the  hand  of  this  apostle.  Nor  are  there  any  passages 
in  their  writings  which  must  of  necessity  be  citations  from  it. 
Those  passages  which  seem  like  parts  of  it  may  be  explained  either 
on  the  score  of  accidental  coincidence  or  of  mutual  reference  to  the 
Old  Testament.  It  was  not  till  after  Origen's  time,  in  the  third 
century,  that  the  Epistle  came  into  use,  and  even  then  doubts  were 
always  current  in  regard  to  its  apostolic  origin,  and  the  learned 
father  Jerome  expressly  remarks  that  most  denied  it  such  an  origin. 
It  is  true,  this  statement  cannot  refer  to  all  members  of  the  church, 
but  only  to  such  as  were  capable  of  critical  investigations  ;  for  the 
same  father  of  the  church  says  further,  that  the  reason  why  most 
denied  it  to  be  Peter's  was,  the  difference  in  style  which  was  ob- 
servable on  comparison  with  the  first  ;  and  clearly,  uneducated  per- 
sons were  incapable  of  judging  as  to  such  difference  in  style.  But 
still,  it  is  extremely  remarkable  that  even  in  the  time  of  Jerome, 
i.  e.,  in  the  fifth  century,  there  should  be  found  in  the  church  so 
many  opponents  of  the  Epistle. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  considered,  in  estimating  the  importance  of 
this  fact  in  relation  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle,  that  no  definite 
historical  arguments  are  adduced  against  the  Epistle  from  any  quar- 
ter. Recourse  is  had,  not  to  the  testimony  of  individuals,  nor  to  the 
declaration  of  entire  churches,  which  denied  the  Epistle  to  be 
Peter's,  but  merely  to  internal  reasons,  deduced  by  the  aid  of  criti- 
cism. This  is  the  more  strange,  as  it  would  appear  that  this  second 
Epistle  of  Peter  was  addressed  to  the  very  same  readers  for  whom 
the  first  was  designed  (Comp.  2  Pet.  iii.  1),  i.  e.,  to  the  Christians 
in  several  churches  of  Asia  Minor.  From  these,  one  would  think, 
there  must  have  proceeded  a  testimony  which  could  not  be  misun- 
derstood against  the  Epistle,  if  Peter  had  not  written  to  them  a 
second  time.  Nor  do  the  fathers  say,  that  the  Epistle  contains 
heresies  or  any  thing  else  totally  unworthy  of  the  apostle  :  indeed 
they  do  not  make  the  slightest  objection  of  this  kind  to  the  charac- 
ter of  its  contents.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  look  at  their  objec- 
tions to  other  evidently  fictitious  writings,  we  find  them  asserting 
that  they  had  an  impious,  detestable  character,  or  that  historical 
evidence  was  against  their  pretended  apostolic  origin.  From  the 
manner  ID  which  history  represents  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  of 


C  THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER. 

the  church,  we  may  suppose  that  their  opinion  respecting  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Epistle  was  founded  in  a  great  measure  upon  the  fact 
that  its  diffusion  was  very  much  delayed.  Since  so  many  writings 
had  been  forged  in  Peter's  name,  the  fathers  of  the  church  probably 
at  once  regarded  an  Epistle  which  came  so  late  into  circulation  with 
some  considerable  suspicion,  and  then  made  use  of  the  difference  in 
language,  or  something  of  the  kind,  to  confirm  this  suspicion.  We 
must  therefore  say,  that  no  decisive  argument  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Epistle  is  to  be  drawn  from  historical  considerations. 
Although  it  was  but  little  known  in  the  ancient  church,  this  want 
of  acquaintance  with  it  may  have  been  founded  on  reasons  not  at  all 
connected  with  its  spuriousness  or  genuineness.  How  many  Epistles 
of  Peter  and  other  apostles  may  never  have  been  much  known  ? 
And  still  the  circumstance  that  they  have  not  been  diffused  abroad 
does  not  disprove  their  apostolic  origin. 

Thus,  as  the  fathers  of  the  church  themselves  had  recourse  to 
the  internal  character  of  the  Epistle,  it  remains  for  us  likewise  to 
examine  this,  and  as  particular  historical  traditions  respecting  the 
Epistle  were  as  inaccessible  to  these  fathers  as  to  us,  and  the  art  of 
criticism  has  not  been  carried  to  a  high  point  of  cultivation  till  re- 
cently, we  may  lay  claim  to  greater  probability,  as  to  the  result  of 
our  investigation,  than  they  could. 

Among  the  striking  circumstances  to  which  we  are  led  by  a  care- 
ful investigation  concerning  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  first 
which  presents  itself,  is  the  very  ancient  observation,  that  the  style 
of  this  Epistle  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the  first.  According 
to  the  most  recent  examinations,  the  case  is  really  so.  The  style  of 
the  second  Epistle  is  so  different  from  that  of  the  first,  as  to  make 
it  hardly  conceivable  that  the  same  author  should  have  written  thus 
variously;  particularly  as  the  two  Epistles  must  have  been  written 
at  no  great  distance  of  time  from  each  other,  it  being  necessary  to 
refer  them  both  to  the  latter  part  of  the  apostle's  life.  But  we  have 
seen  above,  that  Peter  probably  employed  another  person  to  write 
for  him  when  he  composed  his  first  Epistle  ;  now,  how  natural  to 
suppose,  as  Jerome  has  already  suggested,  that  in  writing  the  second 
Epistle  Peter  only  made  use  of  a  different  assistant  from  the  one 
employed  in  writing  the  first,  which  supposition  satisfactorily  ex- 
plains the  difference  in  style.  If  it  be  insisted,  however,  that  this 
supposition  is  a  very  violent  one,  we  may  then  admit  that  the 
Epistles  are  in  reality  not  apostolic,  but  are  from  Sylvanus,  or  some 
other  writer.  It  is  certainly  true,  that  by  this  hypothesis  we  sur- 
render the  common  opinion,  that  Peter  either  guided  the  pen  him- 
self, or  at  least  dictated  to  the  amanuensis  word  for  word  what  he 
should  write.  But  is  it  at  all  essential  to  admit  that  the  writings 
of  the  apostles  originated  precisely  in  this  way  ?  Is  a  prince's  letter 


THE    SECOND   EPISTLE    OF   PETER.  Cl 

of  less  value,  because  his  secretary  wrote  it,  and  the  prince  himself 
only  signed  it  ?  Do  we  esteem  the  writings  of  Mark  and  Luke  any 
less  because  they  were  not  apostles  ?  These  last  writings  show  best 
how  the  case  is  to  be  considered.  Say  that  these  two  Epistles  were 
written  by  Sylvanus  or  Mark  ;  is  their  importance  to  us  in  the  least 
diminished,  when  Peter  has  given  them  the  confirmation  of  hie 
apostolic  authority,  as  presenting  his  ideas,  his  mode  of  thinking  ? 

This  hypothesis  of  Peter's  having  employed  a  writer  in  the  com- 
position of  the  second  Epistle,  explains,  moreover,  another  remark 
which  it  has  been  usual  to  urge  against  its  apostolic  origin.  If  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  be  compared  with  the  second  chapter  of  this  Epistle, 
there  will  appear  a  very  striking  similarity  between  them.  This,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  Gospels,  is  so  great  that  it  is  impossible  it  should 
have  arisen  accidentally.  An  impartial  comparison  of  the  two 
makes  it  extremely  probable  that  Jude  is  the  original,  and  was  em- 
ployed in  the  Epistle  of  Peter.  Now  this  hardly  seems  suitable  for 
the  Apostle  Peter,  considering  him  as  the  author  of  the  Epistle. 
He,  the  pillar  of  the  church,  should  have  been  the  original  writer, 
though  it  would  not  have  been  strange  that  Jude,  who  held  a  far 
lower  rank,  should  make  use  of  his  production.  On  the  supposition, 
however,  that  Peter  employed  an  individual  to  write  for  him,  the 
latter  might  have  made  use  of  Jude's  Epistle,  and  what  would  be 
totally  unsuitable  for  an  apostle,  would  not  be  at  all  strange  in  his 
assistant.  If  it  be  said  that,  as  Peter  must  have  known  the  use 
which  was  made  of  Jude,  the  circumstance  still  remains  very  strange, 
we  may  suppose  that  both,  Peter  (with  his  assistant)  and  Jude, 
conferred  together  in  regard  to  combating  the  heretics,  and  agreed 
together  in  certain  fundamental  thoughts,  and  that  thus  coincidence 
in  details  was  occasioned  by  their  common  written  ground-work. 
Still,  it  may  not  be  concealed,  that,  after  all  attempts  to  explain 
these  appearances,  there  nevertheless  remains  in  the  mind  something 
like  suspicion  ;  and  for  this  reason,  although  there  are  certainly  not 
sufficient  grounds  for  rejecting  the  Epistle,  we  cannot  regard  its 
genuineness  as  susceptible  of  proof. 

There  are  other  points  of  less  moment,  which  are  usually  brought 
forward  by  the  opponents  of  the  Epistle.  Among  these  is  the  pas- 
sage 2  Peter  iii.  2,  in  which  the  writer,  it  is  said,  is  distinguished 
from  the  apostles,  just  as  in  Heb.  ii.  3.  But,  in  the  first  place,  the 
reading  in  the  former  passage  is  not  perfectly  certain,  since  several 
ancient  versions  give  it  the  same  sense  as  Luther,  who  translates  : 
"  that  ye  may  be  mindful  of  the  words  which  were  spoken  before 
by  the  holy  prophets,  and  of  the  commandment  of  us,  the  apostles 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour."1  But,  even  though  we  admit  that  to 
1  So,  too,  in  the  English  version.  The  question  alluded  to  in  the  text  is,  whether  we 
should  translate,  of  us  the  apostles,  or,  of  the  aposttes  sent  to  us  (or  to  you,  according  to  an- 
other reading)?  See  the  original  Greek. — TK. 


CU  THE    SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER. 

be  the  correct  reading,  is  one  by  which  the  author  is  distinguished 
from  the  apostles,  we  may  explain  the  passage  by  supposing  that 
the  writer  who  was  employed,  instead  of  speaking  in  the  name  of 
the  apostle,  spoke  in  his  own  person.  This  was  certainly  an  over- 
sight, but  not  a  very  great  one  ;  like  that,  e.  g.,  which  occasioned 
the  Evangelists  to  differ  from  each  other  in  respect  to  the  number 
of  the  blind  men  whom  our  Lord  healed,  and  other  points  of  the 
kind.  The  admission  of  such  trifling  oversight  belongs  properly  to 
God's  plan  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures,  since  literal  coincidence 
would,  on  the  other  hand,  give  rise  to  strong  suspicion  in  regard  to 
the  veracity  of  the  writers  (as  it  would  suggest  the  inference  that 
there  had  been  previous  concert  between  them),  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  would  be  danger  of  confounding  the  letter  with  the 
spirit,  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  latter. 

Of  as  little  consequence  is  the  reference  made  to  2  Pet.  iii.  15, 
16,  where  Peter  says  of  his  beloved  brother  Paul,  whose  wisdom  he 
extols :  "  as  also  in  all  his  Epistles,  speaking  in  them  of  these 
things  ;  in  which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,  which 
they  that  are  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest,  as  they  do  also  the 
other  Scriptures,  unto  their  own  destruction."  These  words,  it  is 
said,  clearly  suppose  a  collection  of  Pauline  Epistles  to  have  been 
current  in  the  church  ;  but  one  cannot  have  been  made  earlier  than 
the  commencement  of  the  second  century,  and  consequently  the 
Epistle  must  be  regarded  as  a  work  of  later  origin.  But  this  as- 
sumption, that  the  collection  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  was  first  made 
at  so  late  a  period,  is  by  no  means  susceptible  of  proof.  Indeed,  in 
the  fourth  chapter  we  attempted  to  prove  it  not  improbable  that 
even  Paul  himself  made  a  collection  of  his  Epistles.  At  all  events, 
no  historical  fact  can  be  adduced  against  this  hypothesis,  and  we 
must  therefore  consider  thus  much  as  certain,  that  the  mention  of  a 
collection  of  Pauline  Epistles  ought  not  to  induce  us  to  conclude 
against  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Epistle  whose  history  we  are  in- 
vestigating. 

Thus  is  confirmed  the  position  which  we  laid  down  above,  that 
not  one  of  the  reasons  usually  adduced  against  the  genuineness  of 
the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  a  decisive  one.  Notwithstanding,  as 
has  been  already  mentioned,  impartiality  enjoins  it  upon  us  to  allow 
that,  after  considering  these  reasons,  there  remains  a  feeling  in  the 
mind  which  does  not  permit  us  to  place  this  Epistle  in  the  rank  of 
those  universally  admitted.  We  find  ourselves  constrained  to  resort 
first  to  one  expedient,  then  to  another,  in  order  to  invalidate  the 
arguments  which  make  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle.  Let 
us,  however,  cast  a  glance  at  the  other  side,  and  consider  the  argu- 
ments which  may  be  adduced  in  favour  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistle.  The  impression  made  by  the  genuine  apostolic  manner,  in 


THE    SECOND    EPISTLE    OF    PETER.  CIU 

the  first  and  third  chapters  in  particular,  is  so  heart-stirring,  the 
severe  moral  tone  which  prevails  throughout  them  is  so  forcible,  that 
very  estimable  scholars  have  found  themselves  induced  to  regard 
these  two  chapters,  or  at  least  the  first,  as  truly  Petrine,  and  the 
second  or  the  last  two  as,  perhaps,  merely  subsequent  additions  to 
the  genuine  Epistle.  This  hypothesis  has  indeed,  at  first  view,  this 
recommendation,  that  we  can  give  proper  weight  to  the  reasons  for 
doubt,  without  being  obliged  to  regard  the  express  statements  re- 
specting Peter  personally  as  having  been  forged.  But  the  close 
connection  of  all  the  chapters  with  each  other,  and  the  uniformity 
of  the  language  and  ideas  throughout  the  Epistle  is  too  much  at 
variance  with  the  supposition  of  an  interpolation  of  the  Epistle,  to 
make  it  right  that  it  should  be  admitted. 

Still,  we  cannot  but  allow  the  great  weight  of  the  reason  from 
which  the  hypothesis  took  its  rise,  viz.,  that  it  was  an  almost  incon- 
ceivable piece  of  impudence  for  an  impostor  to  assume  the  person  of 
the  Apostle  Peter,  so  as  even  to  speak  of  his  presence  at  the  trans- 
figuration on  Mount  Tabor,  and  venture  to  invent  prophecies  of  our 
Lord  to  him  respecting  his  end.  (Comp.  2  Pet.  i.  14).  It  is  true, 
appeal  is  made,  on  this  point,  to  the  practice  of  the  ancients,  ac- 
cording to  which  it  was  not  so  strange  and  censurable,  it  is  said,  to 
write  under  another's  name,  as  it  appears  to  us  at  the  present  day. 
And  it  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  in  the  primitive  times  of  the  church 
writings  were  much  more  frequently  forged  in  the  name  of  others 
than  at  the  present  time.  But  it  is  a  question  whether  this  is  to 
be  referred  to  the  custom  of  the  times,  or  does  not  rather  arise  from 
the  fact,  that  in  the  less  methodical  book-transactions  of  the  ancient 
world,  it  was  much  easier  to  get  fictitious  writings  into  circulation 
than  it  is  at  present,  on  account  of  the  great  publicity  which  now 
attends  such  transactions.  At  any  rate,  we  must  say,  that  it  was  a 
very  culpable  practice,  if  it  ever  was  common,  to  procure  currency 
for  one's  literary  productions  by  aifixing  a  great  name  to  them  ; 
and  every  honourable  man  would  have  avoided  it  and  written  only 
in  his  own  name.  Suppose,  however,  it  was  less  offensive  than  now 
to  publish  any  thing  under  an  assumed  name,  we  must  notwith- 
standing protest  in  the  most  earnest  manner  against  the  idea,  that 
a  man  could  permit  himself  fraudulently  to  appropriate  such  points 
from  the  life  of  him  whose  name  he  used  as  could  be  true  only  of 
the  latter  ;  which  must  be  the  case  in  regard  to  this  Epistle,  if  it 
was  not  written  by  Peter.  Were  this  to  be  done  in  any  case,  the 
use  of  another's  name  would  no  longer  be  a  mere  form  in  writing, 
it  would  rather  be  a  coarse  piece  of  imposture,  such  as  could  not  oc- 
cur without  a  decidedly  wrong  intention  ;  and  this  leads  us  to  a  new 
and  important  point  in  the  investigation  of  the  origin  of  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter. 


CIV  THE   SECOND    EPISTLE   OF   PETEB. 

The  alternative  in  which  we  are  thus  placed  is  as  harsh  as  it 
could  possibly  be.  Either  the  Epistle  is  genuine  and  apostolical,  or 
it  is  not  only  spurious  and  forged,  but  was  forged  by  a  bold,  shame- 
less impostor,  and  such  a  person  must  have  had  an  evil  design  in 
executing  a  forgery  of  the  land  supposed.  Now  in  the  whole  Epis- 
tle we  do  not  find  the  slightest  thing  which  can  be  regarded  as  er- 
roneous or  as  morally  bad.  Its  contents  are  entirely  biblical,  and 
truly  evangelical.  An  elevated  religious  spirit  animates  the  Epistle 
throughout.  Is  it  conceivable,  that  a  man  actuated  by  this  spirit 
can  be  chargeable  with  such  a  deception  ?  Or  is  it  supposed  that 
this  spirit  is  itself  feigned  ?  But  this  idea  plainly  contradicts  itself, 
for  he  who  is  bad  enough  to  forge  writings  cannot  entertain  the  de- 
sign of  extending  a  good  influence  by  his  forgery.  No  forgery  would 
be  necessary  for  such  a  purpose.  The  design  must  have  been  to  de- 
fend what  was  unholy  in  principle  or  practice  under  cover  of  a  sacred 
name.  The  only  probable  purpose  of  the  forgery  of  the  Epistle  is 
this  ;  that  the  unknown  author  of  the  production  wished  to  combat 
the  heretics  described  in  the  second  chapter,  and  in  order  that  he 
might  do  this  with  some  effect,  he  wrote  in  the  name  of  the  Apostle 
Peter,  and  made  use  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude  in  doing  so.  But  if  a 
man  who  was  honest  (in  other  respects)  could  have  been  induced  to 
enter  upon  such  a  crooked  path,  would  he  not  have  contented  him- 
self with  placing  the  apostle's  name  in  front  of  his  Epistle  ?  Would 
his  conscience  have  permitted  him  to  appropriate  falsely  from  the 
life  of  the  apostle  such  particulars  as  are  narrated  in  the  Epistle? 
This  is  really  hard  to  believe,  and  the  efforts  made  to  preserve  the 
genuineness  of  the  first  chapter  at  least,  which  contains  these  very 
particulars,  sufficiently  prove  how  universal  is  the  feeling  that  the 
statements  it  contains  cannot  have  been  forged. 

It  is  true  the  case  would  stand  otherwise,  if  it  were  a  well- 
founded  position,  that  the  Epistle  really  contains  erroneous  tenets. 
But  how  truly  impossible  it  is  to  establish  this,  is  very  evident  from 
the  nature  of  the  points  adduced  as  errors.  In  the  first  place,  one 
is  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  passage,  2  Peter  iii.  5,  in  which 
it  is  said,  that  the  earth  was  formed  out  of  water  and  in  water  by 
the  word  of  God.1  It  is  true,  there  are  parallels  to  this  view  of  the 
creation^of  the  earth  in  several  mythical  cosmogonies  ;  but  is  this 
circumstance  a  proof  that  the  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
out  of  water  is  false?  Does  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation,  or 
any  other  passage  in  the  Bible,  contain  any  thing  which  in  the 
slightest  degree  impugns  it?  Or  does  the  condition  of  the  physical 
or  geological  sciences  in  our  day  prove  that  the  earth  certainly  came 
into  existence  in  a  different  manner?  It  will  suffice,  in  regard  to 

1  Our  English  version  gives  a  somewhat  different  sense  to  this  passage  ;  but  probably 
the  translation  above  conveys  nearly,  if  not  exactly,  its  true  signification. — TR. 


THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER.  CV 

this  point,  to  remind  our  readers  that  the  formation  of  the  earth 
out  of  water  was  taught  by  the  celebrated  De  Luc,  not  to  mention 
many  men  of  less  note.  At  the  most,  then,  it  can  only  be  said  that 
in  the  passage  referred  to,  there  is  something  openly  and  definitely 
stated  which  is  not  found  thus  stated  in  any  other  book  of  the  Bible  ; 
though  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  crea- 
tion ("  The  Spirit  of  Grod  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters")  is 
susceptible  of  such  an  interpretation,  as  to  convey  the  idea  which  is 
more  plainly  declared  in  2  Pet.  iii.  5.  Thus  there  is  no  ground  for 
talking  about  an  error  in  this  passage  of  the  Epistle.  The  same 
remarks  may  be  made  respecting  another  position,  that  the  doctrine 
(also  presented  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter) 
concerning  the  destruction  of  the  world  by  fire  is  erroneous.  For  it 
can  by  no  means  be  shown  in  regard  to  this  second  idea,  that  it 
contradicts  the  common  statement  of  the  Bible,  or  contains  any 
thing  incorrect.  Indeed,  there  are  other  passages,  likewise,  that 
contain  an  intimation,  at  least,  of  the  same  thing  which  is  here 
openly  stated.  (Comp.  Isaiah  li.  6  ;  Zeph.  iii.  8).  And  so  far  are 
the  similar  mythical  accounts  in  other  religions  from  arguing  any 
thing  wrong  in  this  idea,  that  we  should  rather  consider  the  coinci- 
dence of  the  mythical  accounts  with  the  biblical  doctrine  as  a  confir- 
mation of  the  real  verity  of  the  former. 

If,  therefore,  we  put  together  all  which  has  been  said  of  the 
second  Epistle  of  Peter,  thus  much  is  certainly  clear,  that  the  cir- 
cumstances which  are  calculated  to  excite  suspicion  respecting  the 
Epistle,  are  by  no  means  sufficient  to  constitute  a  formal  proof  of 
their  spuriousness.  True,  the  suspicious  points  cannot  be  so  per- 
fectly obviated,  that  every  doubt  will  disappear.  Some  uncertainty 
will  remain  in  the  mind.  Still  the  positive  arguments  in  behalf  of 
its  genuineness  so  far  allay  these  doubts  that  it  is  possible  to  obtain 
a  satisfactory  subjective  conviction  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epis- 
tle. But  a  proof  of  its  genuineness  which  shall  be  of  perfect  valid- 
ity and  be  generally  acknowledged  can  no  more  be  attained  than 
such  a  proof  of  its  spuriousness  ;  and,  therefore,  there  will  always 
be  something  dubious  in  the  position  of  this  Epistle.  The  ancient 
fathers  of  the  church  endeavoured  to  express  this  uncertainty  by  the 
term  Antilegomena,  and  later  teachers  in  the  evangelical  church  by 
the  designation  Deutero-canonical  writings,  among  which  this  Epis- 
tle is  reckoned.  Attempts  to  remove  all  the  obscurity  which  en- 
velopes the  facts  in  regard  to  this  Epistle  will  probably  always  prove 
vain,  from  the  want  of  historical  accounts  respecting  the  use  and  dif- 
fusion of  it  in  primitive  times. 


CVJ  THE  EPISTLES   OF   JAMES   AND   JUDE. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

OF   THE   EPISTLES   OF   JAMES  AND  JUDE. 

IN  investigating  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  the  question 
is,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  not  so  much  whe- 
ther they  are  genuine  or  spurious,  as  who  was  their  author.  This 
may  seem  strange,  inasmuch  as  the  authors  of  both  of  them  men- 
tion themselves  in  the  salutations,  which  is  not  the  case  as  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Indeed,  Jude,  for  the  purpose  of  designa- 
ting himself  still  more  definitely,  adds  the  circumstance  that  he  was 
the  brother  of  James.  But,  as  both  these  names  were  very  common 
among  the  Jews,  and  the  relations  between  the  persons  of  this 
name  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  are  quite  involved,  it  is  a 
very  difficult  inquiry,  what  James  and  what  Jude  were  the  authors 
of  the  Epistles  which  we  are  considering.  Now,  if  it  should  be 
probable,  on  investigation,  that  the  authors  of  the  two  Epistles  were 
not  apostles  (*'.  e.  among  the  number  of  the  twelve  disciples),  then 
will  arise  a  second  inquiry,  what  we  are  to  think  of  the  canonical 
authority  of  the  Epistles? 

The  first  question  is,  how  many  persons  of  the  name  of  James 
and  Jude  are  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  or  by  ancient  Chris- 
tian writers?  From  the  catalogues  of  the  twelve  apostles  (Matt. 
x.  2  seq.;  Mark  iii.  13  seq.;  Luke  vi.  12  seq.;  Acts  i.  13  seq.),  we 
perceive  that  two  individuals  among  them  were  named  James.  The 
first  was  the  brother  of  the  Evangelist  John,  a  son  of  Zebedce  and 
Salome  ;  this  James  is  often  mentioned  in  the  evangelical  history. 
His  brother  Peter,  and  himself,  were  of  all  the  apostles  the  most 
intimate  with  our  Lord.  He  was  present  at  the  transfiguration  and 
at  our  Lord's  agony  in  the  garden  of  G-ethsemane.  According  to 
Acts  xii.  2,  Herod  killed  him  with  the  sword  a  few  years  after  our 
Lord's  ascension.  As,  therefore,  this  James  disappeared  from  the 
scene  of  events  very  early,  he  does  not  cause  much  difficulty  in  the 
investigation.  The  second  James  is  termed  the  son  of  Alphasus, 
and  of  this  apostle  we  have  so  uncertain  accounts,  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine  much  respecting  him. 

As  there  were  two  individuals  of  the  name  of  James  among  the 
twelve,  so  there  were  two  Judes.  One,  the  betrayer  of  our  Lord,  of 
course  is  not  concerned  in  this  investigation.  He  cannot  be  con- 
founded with  any  one  else  ;  especially  as  he  had  the  surname  Isoa- 
riot  from  his  birth-place  Carioth.  The  second  Jude,  it  would  seem, 
bore  many  names  ;  for  while  Luke  (in  the  Gospel  as  well  as  in  the 
Acts)  calls  hun  Jude  the  son  of  James,  Matthew  and  Mark  call 


THE   EPISTLES   OF   JAMES   AND   JUDE.  CV11 

him  sometimes  Thaddeus,  and  sometimes  Lebbeus.  It  was  not  at 
all  uncommon  among  the  Jews  for  one  man  to  bear  several  names  ; 
and,  therefore,  we  may  admit  the  validity  of  the  prevalent  opinion 
that  Lebbeus  or  Thaddeus,  and  Jude,  the  son  of  James,  are  the 
same  individuals.  In  John  xiv.  22,  a  second  Jude  among  the  twelve 
is  expressly  distinguished  from  Jude  (Judas)  the  traitor,  who  is 
termed  Iscariot ;  and  hence  the  name  Jude  may  have  been  the  one 
by  which  the  former  was  most  commonly  designated. 

Now  did  we  know  with  perfect  certainty  that  the  authors  of  the 
Epistles  under  consideration  were  of  the  number  of  the  twelve,  it 
would  be  easy  to  fix  upon  the  individuals  ;  James,  the  son  of  Al- 
phaeus  must  have  written  the  Epistle  of  James,  and  Jude,  the  son 
of  James,  that  of  Jude.  But  as  Jude  (v.  1)  calls  himself  the  bro- 
ther of  James,  he  must  either  mean  another  man  of  this  name 
known  to  his  readers,  or  we  must  suppose  the  term  brother  to  signi- 
fy step-brother  or  cousin,  as  indeed  the  word  is  often  used  in  He- 
brew. For  the  opinion  of  some,  that  in  the  catalogues  of  the  apos- 
tles (see  Luke's  Gospel  and  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles),  Jude  is  not 
called  the  son  but  the  brother  of  James,  must  be  totally  rejected, 
because,  though  it  is  true  that  sometimes  the  word  brother  is  to  be 
supplied  for  the  genitive  following  a  proper  name,  this  is  onty  the 
case  when  it  is  clear  from  the  connection  what  is  to  be  supplied.  In 
the  apostolic  catalogue,  however,  son  is  everywhere  else  to  be  sup- 
plied for  the  genitive  ;  and  hence  it  is  incredible  that  in  the  case  of 
Jude  alone  brother  must  be  added. 

But  that  the  authors  of  these  two  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude 
were  among  the  number  of  the  twelve  is  very  uncertain  (indeed, 
as  we  shall  show  hereafter,  improbable),  and  on  that  account  we 
have  still  to  determine  the  difficult  question,  what  persons  of  these 
names  wrote  the  Epistles?  The  following  reasons  show  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  idea  that  the  authors  of  the  Epistles  were  apostles. 
In  the  first  place,  the  fathers  of  the  church  speak  of  another  James, 
the  brother  of  our  Lord,  and  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  another 
Jude,  likewise  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  as  the  authors  of  the  Epis- 
tles ;  and,  moreover,  these  were  disputed  by  many,  and  reckoned 
among  the  Antilegomena,  clearly  for  this  reason  alone,  that  it  was 
supposed  perfectly  correct  to  regard  them  as  not  apostolical.  Thus, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  fathers,  there  were  beside  the  two  Jameses  and 
Judcs  among  the  twelve,  two  other  persons  of  these  names,  called 
brothers  of  our  Lord.  These  are  mentioned  in  the  passage  Matt, 
xiii.  55,  with  two  other  brothers  of  our  Lord,  Simon  and  Joses,  and 
with  sisters  of  his  whose  names  are  not  given.  They  are  also  men- 
tioned in  the  later  history  of  the  apostolic  age  (Acts  xv.  13  seq.; 
Gal.  i.  19  ;  ii.  9),  particularly  James,  who  is  designated  with  Peter 
and  John  as  a  pillar  of  the  church.  According  to  the  fathers  of  the 


CV111  THE  EPISTLES   OF  JAMES  AND  JUDE. 

church,  he  was  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  description 
which  the  New  Testament  gives  of  his  position  and  operations  per- 
fectly accords  with  this  statement.  According  to  the  account  of  the 
Jewish  writer,  Josephus,  and  a  very  ancient  Christian  historian, 
named  Hegesippus,  this  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  died  a 
martyr's  death  at  Jerusalem  shortly  before  its  destruction.  He  pos- 
sessed such  authority  and  such  reputation  for  piety  among  the  Jews, 
that,  according  to  Josephus,  the  destruction  of  the  city  was  a  pun- 
ishment from  heaven  for  the  execution  of  this  just  man.  James  was 
succeeded  in  the  bishopric  of  Jerusalem  by  another  brother  of  our 
Lord,  viz.,  Simon  (Matth.  xiii.  55),  who,  as  well  as  the  third  brother 
Jude,  lived  till  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Trajan,  i.  e.,  to  the  end  of 
the  first  century' after  Christ.  According  to  the  account  of  Hege- 
sippus, Simon  also  died  a  martyr's  death,  like  his  brother  ;  of  the 
manner  of  Jude's  end  nothing  definite  is  known.  Although,  how- 
ever, we  find  these  brethren  of  our  Lord  labouring  with  ardent 
Christian  zeal  .after  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  still,  in  the  life- 
time of  our  Lord  they  did  not  believe  on  him.  This  we  are  told  by 
John  expressly  (vii.  5),  and  therefore,  we  do  not  observe  these 
brethren  of  Jesus  among  the  disciples  until  after  his  resurrection 
from  -the  dead  (Acts  i.  14).  Probably  the  vision  with  which  (ac- 
cording to  1  Cor.  xv.  7),  James  was  favoured,  was  the  means  of  con- 
vincing them  all  of  the  Divine  dignity  of  our  Lord,  which  hitherto, 
perhaps  on  the  very  account  of  their  close  relationship  to  him  by 
blood,  they  had  been  unable  to  credit.  It  is  true  the  expression, 
brothers  of  our  Lord,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  meaning  what  the 
words  strictly  signify ;  for  Mary,  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  appears 
not  to  have  had  any  other  children.  The  passages  Matth.  i.  25, 
Luke  ii.  7,  in  which  Jesus  is  called  the  first-born  son  of  Mary,  prove 
nothing  to  the  contrary,  since,  if  no  more  children  follow,  the  only 
son  is  also  the  first-born.  If  the  statements  of  Scripture  respecting 
these  brethren  of  our  Lord  be  put  together,  it  cannot  be  doubted, 
that  the  children  of  the  sister  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  are 
intended  by  the  expression.  This  sister  of  Mary  was  likewise 
named  Mary,  and  was  the  wife  of  a  certain  Cleophas.  She  stood 
with  the  mother  of  Jesus  beneath  the  cross  of  our  Lord,  as  did  also 
Mary  Magdalene  (John  xix.  25).  This  saYne  Mary  is  called  in  the 
parallel  passage  of  Mark  (xv.  40)  the  mother  of  James  the  Less  and 
of  Joses.  Here,  then,  are  named  two  of  the  persons  who  in  Matth. 
xiii.  55,  are  termed  brothers  of  our  Lord.  Nothing,  therefore,  is 
more  natural,  as  it  nowhere  appears  that  Mary  had  any  other  chil- 
dren, than  to  suppose  that  these  so-called  brethren  of  our  Lord  were 
his  cousins,  the  sons  of  his  mother's  sister.  As  it  is  probable  that 
Joseph,  the  foster-father  of  Jesus,  died  at  an  early  period  (for  he  is 
not  mentioned  after  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  hi  the  twelfth  year  of 


THE   EPISTLES  OF   JAMES   AND  JUDE.  CLX 

Jesus'  age),  Mary  perhaps  went  to  live  with  her  sister,  and  thus 
Jesus  grew  up  with  the  sons  of  the  latter,  which  may  have  been  the 
reason  why  it  was  so  difficult  for  them  to  give  credit  to  his  Divine 
authority.  It  was  very  common  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  to  term 
cousins  brothers.  Hence  in  Gen.  xni.  8,  Abraham  and  Lot,  who 
were  cousins,  are  termed  brothers.  If  we  were  to  take  the  word 
brother  in  its  literal  sense,  and  regard  the  four  brothers  of  our  Lord 
mentioned  in  Matth.  xiii.  55  as  own  children  of  Mary,  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  we  should  have  to  suppose  the  extraordinary  circumstance 
that  the  two  mothers  of  the  same  name  had  also  children  named 
alike.  Now,  as  we  nowhere  find  mention,  first  of  our  Lord's 
brethren,  and  then  of  his  cousins,  but  the  same  relations  are  always 
referred  to,  this  supposition,  cannot  be  admitted.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  another  supposition,  according  to  which  two  of  these  so- 
called  brethren  of  our  Lord,  viz.,  Jude  and  James,  were  of  the  num- 
ber of  the  twelve.  For  it  is  said  that  the  Hebrew  name  which  lies 
at  the  basis  of  the  Greek  one,  Cleophas  (abbreviated  Klopas),  viz., 
Chalpai,  may  also  in  Greek  become  Alphaeus.  Thus  James  the  son 
of  Alphaeus  would  be  equivalent  to  Jumes  the  son  of  Cleophas. 
Now,  it  is  true,  that  on  the  score  of  philology  nothing  can  be 
reasonably  objected  against  this  supposition  ;  but,  its  validity  is  over- 
thrown by  the  fact  that  one  and  the  same  writer  (viz.  Luke),  pre- 
sents both  forms.  Although  the  name  could  be  differently  expressed 
in  Greek,  at  least  the  same  writer  would  always  have  followed 
the  same  mode.  Moreover,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  it  is  in- 
admissible to  supply  the  word  brother,  instead  of  son,  after  the 
name  Jude.  Lastly,  it  is  a  decisive  circumstance,  that  in  John  vii. 
5  it  is  most  expressly  stated  that  the  brethren  of  Jesus  did  not  be- 
lieve on  him.  It  is,  therefore,  impossible  that  they  should  have 
been  of  the  number  of  the  twelve.  Consequently,  the  New  Testa- 
ment mentions,  besides  the  James,  son  of  Zebedee,  who  was  early  exe- 
cuted, two  other  persons  of  this  name,  first  the  apostle,  who  was  a 
son  of  Alphseus,  and  next,  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  the  first  bishop 
of  Jerusalem.  Thus,  too,  the'  New  Testament  mentions,  besides 
the  Apostle  Jude,  who  was  the  son  of  a  certain  James,  of  whom 
we  know  nothing,  another  Jude  who,  likewise,  was  a  brother  of  our 
Lord,  and  lived  to  a  late  period  (till  the  time  of  Trajan),  in  Pales- 
tine. That  these  two  brothers  of  our  Lord,  and  not  the  apostles, 
were  the  authors  of  our  Epistles,  has  been  already  intimated  and 
will  now  be  more  fully  shown. 

Of  great  importance,  and  indeed  almost  decisive  by  itself,  is  the 
circumstance,  that  the  fathers  of  the  church  refer  the  Epistle  of 
James  to  the  brother  of  our  Lord  of  that  name  ;  and,  too,  the 
fathers  who  lived  in  that  very  region  which  was  the  scene  of  the 
labours  of  this  celebrated  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  viz.,  the  east.  Here 


CX  THE   EPISTLES  OF   JAMES   AND  JUDE. 

they  might  and  must  have  had  the  most  exact  accounts  respecting 
this  distinguished  man,  and  information  as  to  his  writings  must  have 
spread  itself  very  readily  from  Jerusalem  to  the  neighbouring  coun- 
tries of  Syria  and  Egypt.  This  historical  testimony  is  confirmed 
very  strongly  by  the  great  agreement  which  exists  between  the  con- 
tents of  the  Epistle  and  the  communications  which  are  made  by 
ancient  fathers  of  the  church,  and  particularly  Hegesippus,  in  re- 
gard to  the  peculiar  habits  of  James.  According  to  the  account  of 
this  writer,  James  distinguished  himself  by  forms  of  piety  which 
were  very  like  those  inculcated  in  the  Old  Testament.  He  fasted 
and  prayed  a  great  deal,  so  that,  as  Hegesippus  relates,  probably 
with  some  exaggeration,  his  knees  had  become  callous.  According  to 
the  New  Testament,  too  (comp.  Acts  xv.  with  Gal.  ii,  12),  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord,  appears  to  have  been  the  head  of  the  Jewish 
Christians.  He,  therefore,  undoubtedly  observed  the  Mosaic  law, 
even  after  he  became  a  Christian,  and  endeavoured  to  obtain  the 
sanctity  enjoined  in  the  Old  Testament.  That,  however,  this  en- 
deavour1 was  not  a  narrow-minded  one,  as  among  the  Ebionites,  but 
a  liberal  one,  as  among  the  Nazarenes,  is  plainly  shown  by  the  nar- 
rative in  the  Acts,  according  to  which  he  did  not,  along  with  the 
obstinate  Judaizers,  desire  to  impose  the  observance  of  the  law  upon 
the  Gentiles,  but  only  adhered  to  it  himself,  as  a  pious  practice  of 
his  fathers.  Still  his  whole  disposition  leaned  somewhat  to  the  side 
of  the  law,  and  this  is  clearly  exhibited  in  the  Epistle. 

The  same  is  true  of  Jude  likewise.  His  very  designation  of  him- 
self as  a  brother  of  James  can  leave  no  doubt  that  he  desired  to 
represent  himself  as  the  brother  of  that  James  who  was  so  celebra- 
ted, the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  He  does  not  call  himself  an 
apostle,  any  more  than  James.  Both  term  themselves  merely  serv- 
ants of  Jesus  Christ,  neglecting  from  modest  humility  to  make  any 
mention  of  their  relationship  by  blood  to  our  Lord.  We  have  no 
statements  on  the  part  of  the  early  fathers  of  the  church  in  regard 
to  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  The  later  fathers,  e.  g., 
Jerome,  call  him  an  apostle,  but  they  did  not  for  that  reason  mean 
a  different  Jude  ;  only,  as  might  very  easily  happen,  considering  the 
confused  accounts  we  have  of  these  men,  they  sometimes  placed 
Jude  the  brother  of  our  Lord  among  the  number  of  the  twelve,  con- 
trary to  John  vii.  5. 

Another  as  important  reason  for  believing  that  James  the  brother 
of  our  Lord,  and  not  the  Apostle  James,  was  regarded  as  the  author 
of  the  Epistle,  is  the  circumstance  that  it  was  reckoned  among  the 
Antilegomena.  Doubts  did  indeed  arise,  but  not  till  a  pretty  late  day. 
Clement  of  Rome,  Hennas,  and  Irenaeus,  make  use  of  the  Epistle 

1  The  original  reads  Schreiben,  which  I  take  to  be  clearly  a  mistake  for  Streben,  and 
translate  accordingly. — Ta. 


THE   EPISTLES   OF  JAMES   AND   JUDE.  Cxi 

without  scruple.  Origen  first,  then  Eusebius,  mention  doubts. 
Now,  as  before  the  time  of  Jerome,  there  is  no  trace  of  the  Epistle's 
having  been  regarded  as  forged  in  James'  name,  the  ground  of  doubt 
can  have  been  no  other  than  that  it  was  questionable  whether  an 
Epistle  of  any  one  not  an  apostle  could  claim  admission  into  the 
canon.  Jerome  observes,  that  certain  individuals  believed  the  Epistle 
of  James  to  have  been  forged  by  some  one  in  his  name.  This  opin- 
ion, however,  is  entirely  devoid  of  probability,  because  in  such  case 
the  author  would  not  have  neglected  to  ascribe  the  dignity  of  apostle 
to  the  James  whom  he  wished  to  be  regarded  as  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle,  that  it  might  be  more  sure  of  admission  into  the  canon. 
Those  persons,  therefore,  of  whom  Jerome  speaks,  and  who  undoubt- 
edly resided  in  the  west,  probably  entertained  doctrinal  scruples 
respecting  the  Epistle.  In  the  west,  and  particularly  in  Eome,  the 
centre  of  the  western  churches,  special  regard  was  felt  for  Paul  and 
his  doctrines.  Now,  the  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle  of  James  was 
supposed  to  contain  erroneous  notions  in  contrariety  to  Paul,  be- 
cause as  was  thought,  it  inculcated  justification  by  works  instead  of 
by  faith.  This  passage  even  misled  Luther  into  a  rejection  of  the 
Epistle  of  James.  In  his  preface  to  it  he  says,  "  This  James  does 
nothing  but  urge  his  readers  to  the  law  and  to  works,  and  his  man- 
ner is  so  confused  that  I  imagine  he  was  some  pious  man  who  had 
gathered  a  few  sayings  from  the  disciples  of  the  apostles,  and  put 
them  down  upon  paper.  .  .  .  Hence  the  Epistle  of  James  is  but 
a  strawy  Epistle  ;  it  has  by  no  means  an  evangelical  tone." 

In  more  recent  times,  however,  it  has  been  proved,  by  very 
thorough  and  impartial  investigations,  that  this  harsh  judgment  of 
Luther  is  certainly  unfounded,  together  with  the  apprehensions  of 
the  ancient  fathers  mentioned  by  Jerome. 

James  only  opposed  misconstructions  and  perversions  of  Paul's 
real  doctrine,  not  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  himself.  The 
two  great  teachers  of  the  church  are  essentially  one  in  sentiment ; 
only  they  had  reference  to  different  heresies,  and  thus  their  language 
wears  a  different  aspect.  In  the  Epistles  to  the  Komans  and  Gala- 
tians,  Paul  presents  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  justification  thereby, 
in  opposition  to  the  reliance  which  the  Jews  placed  on  works. 
James,  on  the  other  hand,  opposes  a  dead  imaginary  faith,  which, 
without  any  renovating  influence  over  the  heart  and  mind,  lulls  a 
man  into  the  sleep  of  sin,  instead  of  making  him  active  in  works  of 
love.  If  we  thus  consider  the  language  of  the  two  apostles  with 
reference  to  the  positions  which  they  respectively  opposed,  we  shall 
perceive  the  most  perfect  unity  between  these  two  teachers  of  the 
church,  notwithstanding  all  their  freedom  and  peculiarity  of  man- 
ner. Though  they  taught  the  same  doctrines,  their  point  of  view 
was  different.  Paul  had  a  predominant  leaning  towards  faith,  not 


CX11  THE   EPISTLES   OF   JAMES   AND   JUDE. 

meaning  by  any  means,  however,  to  deny  that  it  must  bear  good 
works  as  its  fruit  ;  James  directed  his  attention  more  to  the  fruit, 
without,  however,  disparaging  the  root  of  faith  from  which  alone 
they  could  spring.1 

Thus,  leaving  wholly  out  of  view  the  influence  of  doctrinal  ideas, 
the  discrepancy  between  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  church  was  only 
whether  the  Epistle,  as  proceeding  from  the  brother  of  our  Lord, 
who  was  not  an  apostle,  should  or  should  not  be  admitted  into  the 
canon.  The  East,  in  general,  maintained  that  it  should,  because 
James  had  exerted  so  much  influence  in  that  region  ;  the  Christians 
of  the  West  were  less  favourable  to  it.  In  reality,  then,  the  question 
was  not  in  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle,  but  in  regard 
to  the  rank  of  James,  whether  or  not  he  should  be  placed  on  a  level 
with  the  apostles  in  respect  to  the  abundance  and  power  of  the  Spirit 
poured  out  upon  him,  so  that  a  writing  of  his  might  be  received 
into  the  canon  as  a  norm  of  faith  and  practice  for  all  future  genera- 
tions of  Christians  ;  a  question  which  we  will  soon  consider  further. 

In  regard  to  this  second  point,  likewise,  the  case  is  the  same 
with  the  Epistle  of  Jude  as  with  that  of  James  ;  except  that  in  the 
accounts  concerning  this  Epistle  given  by  ancient  fathers  we  do  not 
find  the  slightest  evidence  that  the  Epistle  was  ever  regarded  as  the 
production  of  an  impostor  who  forged  it  in  Jude's  name.  Such  a 
supposition  respecting  this  Epistle  is  extremely  improbable.  In 
such  case,  would  an  impostor  have  contented  himself'  with  designa- 
ting Jude  as  the  "  brother  of  James."  Would  he  not  at  least  have 
expressly  called  him  an  apostle  of  our  Lord,  in  order  to  gain  a  place 
for  the  Epistle  in  the  canon  ?  When  we  are  told,  therefore,  of  op- 
position to  the  Epistle,  which  caused  it  to  be  placed  among  the  An- 
tilegomena,  we  must  refer  it  all  to  a  refusal  to  accord  to  the  author 
of  the  Epistle,  who  was  not  an  apostle,  sufficient  consideration  to 
procure  its  admission  into  the  canon.  Thus  in  regard  to  the  Epistle 
of  Jude,  likewise,  the  point  in  question  is,  not  the  genuineness  of 
the  Epistle,  but  only  the  personal  standing  of  the  author,  which  by 
some  of  the  fathers  of  the  church  was  considered  equal  to  that  of  an 
apostle,  and  by  others  inferior.  The  investigation  of  this  question, 
then,  what  we  are  to  think  of  the  admission  of  two  productions  of 
writers  who  were  not  apostles  into  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament, 
remains  for  the  conclusion  of  this  chapter. 

Now,  whether  it  be  said,  that  the  church  has  forsaken  its  prin- 
ciple of  admitting  no  writing  into  the  canon  which  was  not  either 
written  by  an  apostle  or  composed  under  his  supervision  and  author- 
ity, in  admitting  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude  ;  or  that  they  in- 

1  See  more  complete  discussions  of  the  supposed  discrepancy  between  Paul  and  James 
on  the  subject  of  faith  and  works,  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  voL  iii.,  p.  189,  and  voL  iv., 
p.  683.— TE. 


THE   EPISTLES   OF   JAMES   AND  JTJDE.  Cxiii 

deed  adhered  to  their  principle,  but  erred  in  regarding  James  and 
Jude,  the  brethren  of  our  Lord,  to  whom  they  correctly  ascribed  the 
Epistles,  as  apostles,  and  therefore  admitting  their  Epistles  into  the 
canon — either  way,  it  would  seem  as  though  we  of  the  present  day 
were  entitled  to  charge  antiquity  with  mistake  respecting  these 
Epistles.  As  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude  the  case  certainly  seems  to  be 
as  we  have  here  stated  it.  It  was  written  by  one  who  was  not  an 
apostle,  by  a  man  of  whose  acts  and  character  we  know  nothing 
further  ;  a  fact  which  appears  to  sustain  the  scruples  of  many  of  the 
ancients  in  regard  to  its  being  canonical.  Moreover,  it  contains 
nothing  which  is  not  also  found  in  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  so 
that  the  church  could  dispense  with  it  without  suffering  the  slight- 
est loss.  We  might  therefore  be  disposed  to  consider  this  Epistle 
as  a  deutero-canonical  production,  which  was  received  into  the  canon 
only  at  a  late  period  on  the  ground  that  it  was  more  advisable  to 
preserve  every  writing  of  the  days  of  the  apostles  than  to  reject  any 
thing  which  might  be  of  apostolic  origin.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten, 
however,  that  the  use  of  Jude's  Epistle  in  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter 
must  be  considered  an  apostolic  confirmation  of  the  former,  if  the 
latter  be  acknowledged  genuine.  Both  productions,  therefore,  stand 
or  fall  together.  The  impossibility,  however,  of  proving  beyond 
doubt  the  genuineness  of  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  will  not  permit 
the  friends  of  these  Epistles  to  entertain  any  thing  more  than  a  sub- 
jective conviction  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  Jude. 

The  case  is  different,  however,  with  the  Epistle  of  James.  For 
this  remarkable  man  appears,  both  according  to  the  New  Testament 
and  according  to  the  fathers  of  the  church,  to  have  occupied  a  very 
influential  position.  It  is  true  he  was  not  of  the  number  of  the 
twelve  ;  but  the  fact  that  our  Lord  appeared  to  him  separately,  as 
he  did  to  Peter  (1  Cor.  xv.  7),  indicates  his  consequence  ;  as  does 
also  the  circumstance  that  he  was  elected  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and 
especially  his  relation  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  of  whom  James 
seems  to  have  been  the  real  head.  Hence  in  Gal.  ii.  9,  this  man, 
with  Peter  and  John,  is  called  a  pillar  of  the  church,  and  Josephus 
represents  the  consideration  in  which  he  was  held  among  the  Jews 
to  have  been  so  great,  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Komans  was  looked  upon  as  a  judgment  for  his  death.  Although, 
therefore,  James  was  no  apostle,  and  moreover,  no  one  of  the  twelve, 
so  far  as  we  know,  afforded  his  confirmation  to  the  Epistle,  still  the 
church  might  well  have  considered  itself  entitled  to  insert  the  pro- 
duction of  so  influential  a  man  in  the  canon.  It  may  be  said,  in- 
deed, that  James  was  in  a  precisely  parallel  situation  to  that  of 
Paul  (who  too  was  not  of  the  number  of  the  twelve,  and  still  en- 
joyed apostolic  dignity)  ;  except  that  in  regard  to  the  appearance 
of  our  Lord  which  was  vouchsafed  to  James,  and  the  commissions 

VOL.  I.— 8 


CX1V  THE   REVELATION   OF   JOHN. 

which  were  entrusted  to  him,  we  have  not  such  particular  informa- 
tion as  is  furnished  us  by  the  Acts  respecting  his  appearance  to 
Paul.  Yet  passing  by  this,  we  cannot  but  declare,  that  an  apostolic 
confirmation  of  a  particular  book,  such  as  we  suppose  in  the  case  of 
Mark  and  Luke,  according  to  the  testimony  of  history,  is  nothing 
compared  with  the  testimony  which  we  have  from  Paul's  own  mouth 
respecting  James.  He  is  designated,  along  with  Peter  and  John,  as 
a  pillar  of  the  whole  church  of  God  upon  earth,  and  thus,  though 
not  one  of  the  twelve,  still  placed  entirely  on  a  level  with  the  pro- 
per apostles  ;  and  hence  no  objection  at  all  can  be  made  to  the  re- 
ception of  the  Epistle  by  the  church.  She  has  not,  in  receiving  it, 
deviated  at  all  from  her  principles  ;  indeed,  she  has  thereby  rather 
applied  them  in  their  real  spirit,  not  rigorously  restricting  the  idea 
of  apostolical  estimation  to  the  number  of  the  twelve,  but  referring 
it  to  the  fulness  and  power  of  the  spirit  exhibited  in  the  life.  This, 
however,  as  appears  from  the  Epistle  itself,  and  from  history,  was 
possessed  in  its  utmost  potency  by  James,  as  well  as  Paul,  on  which 
account  the  Epistle  of  the  former  richly  merits  a  place  among  the 
canonical  books. 


CHAPTER  X. 

OF   THE   EEVBLATION   0"F   JOHN. 

THE  sublime  book  which  concludes  the  New  Testament,  the 
Eevelation  of  St.  "John,  (6  tfeoAoyof,)  with  its  wonderful  images  and 
visions,  has  met  with  a  more  extraordinary  fate  than  any  other  writ- 
ing of  the  New  Testament.  The  impressive  and  Absorbing  nature 
of  the  contents  of  the  book  has  seldom  permitted  any  one  to  examine 
it  with  cool  impartiality,  and  while  some  have  become  the  enthu- 
siastic advocates  of  the  book,  others  have  appeared  as  its  most  vio- 
lent opponents,  not  only  rejecting  the  work  as  not  apostolical,  or  as 
forged,  but  even  reviling  it  as  the  production  of  an  heretical  spirit. 
Thus  it  has  happened,  that,  while  no  production  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment can  exhibit  more  and  stronger  historical  evidence  of  its  genu- 
ineness and  its  apostolic  authority  than  the  Revelation,  none  has 
met  with  more  antagonists  ;  and,  indeed,  many  of  its  antagonists 
are  men  who  have  merited  much  gratitude  from  the  church  for  their 
struggles  in  behalf  of  the  truth.  Among  these  is  Luther,  who 
shows  himself  a  determined  opponent  of  John's  Eevelation.  He 
says,  in  his  preface  to  it : 

"  There  are  various  and  abundant  reasons  why  I  regard  this  book 
as  neither  apostolical  nor  prophetic.  First  and  foremost ;  the  apos- 


THE   REVELATION   OF   JOHN.  CXV 

ties  do  not  make  use  of  visions,  but  prophesy  in  clear  and  plain 
language  (as  do  Peter,  Paul,  and  Christ  also,  in  the  Gospel)  ;  for  it 
is  becoming  the  apostolic  office  to  speak  plainly  and  without  figure 
or  vision,  respecting  Christ  and  his  acts. — Moreover,  it  seems  to  me 
far  too  arrogant  for  him  to  enjoin  it  upon  his  readers  to  regard  this 
his  own  work  as  of  more  importance  than  any  other  sacred  book, 
and  to  threaten  that  if  any  one  shall  take  aught  away  from  it,  God 
will  take  away  from  him  his  part  in  the  book  of  life  (Rev.  xxii.  19). 
Besides,  even  were  it  a  blessed  thing  to  believe  what  is  contained  in 
it,  no  man  knows  what  that  is.  The  book  is  believed  in  (and  is 
really  just  the  same  to  us)  as  though  we  had  it  not ;  and  many 
more  valuable  books  exist  for  us  to  believe  in.  But  let  every  man 
think  of  it  as  his  spirit  prompts  him.  My  spirit  cannot  adapt  itself 
to  the  production,  and  this  is  reason  enough  for  me  why  I  should 
not  esteem  it  very  highly." 

From  this  strong  language  of  the  great  Reformer  it  is  sufficiently 
evident  how  repulsive  the  contents  of  the  Revelation  were  to  him. 
As  he  termed  the  Epistle  of  James  a  strawy  Epistle,  because  it 
seemed  to  him  to  contradict  Paul's  doctrine  in  regard  to  faith,  so  he 
rejected  the  Revelation,  because  the  imagery  of  the  book  was  unin- 
telligible to  him.  This  was  obscure  to  him  from  the  fact  that  he 
could  not  thoroughly  apprehend  the  doctrine  of  God's  kingdom  upon 
earth,  which  is  exhibited  in  the  Revelation,  and  forms  the  proper 
centre  of  every  thing  contained  in  it. 

The  same  point  has  at  all  times  in  the  church  operated  very 
powerfully  upon  the  judgments  of  learned  men  in  regard  to  the 
Revelation  ;  and  therefore  we  must,  before  any  particular  examina- 
tion of  this  production,  make  some  general  observations  on  the  pro^ 
priety  of  permitting  doctrinal  views  generally,  and  the  doctrine  of 
God's  kingdom  upon  earth  particularly,  to  have  an  influence  on 
criticism. 

In  recent  times,  critical  investigations  of  the  sacred  books  have 
pretty  generally  proceeded  on  the  principle,  that  the  doctrinal  views 
ought  not  to  exert  any  influence  upon  inquiries  respecting  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Scriptures.  It  has  been  easy  to  lay  down  this  princi- 
ple, because  generally1  the  binding  authority  of  Sacred  Writ  has  been 
denied,  and  writers  have  not  felt  it  incumbent  on  them  to  admit  as 
an  object  of  faith  every  thing  that  was  stated  in  genuine  apostolic 
writings.  Indeed,  to  many  an  investigator  it  has  been,  very  gratify- 
ing, that  in  genuine  writings  of  the  apostles  things  should  occur 
which  to  him  seemed  evident  errors  ;  since  in  such  case  it  be- 
came more  easy  to  prove  that  the  apostles  even  had  stated  many 
things  erroneously,  and  that  therefore  what  was  true  in  their  pro- 
ductions should  be  separated  from  what  was  false.  With  Luther, 

1  That  is,  iu  Germany. — TR. 


CXV1  THE    REVELATION   OF   JOHK 

however,  and  all  the  other  old  theologians  the  case  was  different. 
They  acknowledged  the  Scriptures  as  binding  on  their  faith,  and 
therefore  could  by  no  means  wholly  exclude  doctrinal  considerations. 
For,  were  a  book  proved  to  be  apostolical  by  all  possible  historical 
and  internal  arguments,  and  yet  it  plainly  subverted  the  Gospel  and 
preached  a  different  Christ  from  the  true  historical  Son  of  God  and 
man,  no  faithful  teacher  of  the  church  of  Christ  should  receive  and 
use  any  such  production,  notwithstanding  all  the  evidence  in  its 
favour,  any  more  than  listen  to  an  angel  from  heaven,  who  should 
bring  another  Gospel  (Gal.  i.  8).  Such  was  Luther's  position  ;  and 
in  this  view  we  may  respect  and  honour  his  opposition  to  the  Epis- 
tle of  James  and  the  Kevelation  of  John.  His  only  error  in  this, 
in  itself  commendable,  endeavour  boldly  to  distinguish  what  was 
anti-christian  was,  that  he  decided  too  rashly  and  hastily,  and  thus 
did  not  investigate  with  sufficient  thoroughness,  and,  on  the  ground 
of  appearances  merely,  pronounced  that  to  be  not  biblical  which  in 
reality  was  so.  That  this  was  the  case  in  regard  to  his  judgment 
concerning  the  discrepancy  between  James  and  Paul,  is  at  the  pre- 
sent day  universally  admitted.  In  regard  to  the  Revelation,  how- 
ever, many  still  think  that  he  judged  correctly,  although,  in  my 
opinion,  he  erred  here  as  much  as  in  relation  to  the  Epistle  of 
James. 

We  cannot  say,  therefore,  that  doctrinal  considerations  are  not 
of  the  least  consequence  in  critical  investigations  ;  though  certainly 
we  must  not  permit  them  to  have  an  improper  influence,  so  as  to 
disturb  the  historical  investigation,  nor  too  hastily  make  an  objec- 
tive rule  of  our  present  subjective  views,  but  endeavour  to  investi- 
gate more  thoroughly  what  is  at  the  moment  obscure  and  inexplicable. 
Such  an  endeavour  will  often  educe  a  modification  of  our  views,  and 
we  may  find  that  what  seemed  erroneous  contains  profound  and 
sublime  truth. 

In  particular,  this  would  undoubtedly  be  the  case  with  many,  if 
they  could  determine  to  consider  more  closely  the  doctrine  respect- 
ing God's  kingdom  upon  earth,  which  has  always  been  the  greatest 
cause  of  offence  in  the  Revelation.  True,  it  is  not  to  be  denied, 
that  the  history  of  the  fortune  of  this  doctrine  is  by  no  means  cal- 
culated to  favour  it  ;  for  every  thing  which  human  ignorance  and 
human  malice  have  been  able  to  devise,  appears  to  have  concentrated 
itself  in  the  misapprehensions  of  this  doctrine.  If,  however,  pains 
be  taken  to  separate  these  misapprehensions  and  perversions  from 
the  doctrine  itself,  and  we  are  impartial  enough  to  consider,  that 
often  very  profound  truths,  which  take  a  mighty  hold  of  the  human 
mind,  are  most  exposed  to  abuse,  and  may  become  most  dangerous, 
and  that  hardly  any  other  religion  has  been  misused  to  such  abomi- 
nable purposes  as  the  Christian  religion  itself,  and  yet  that  it  is  not 


THE   KEVELATION   OF  JOHN.  CXV11 

on  that  account  the  less  true,  or  the  less  divine,  he  will  easily  attain 
the  proper  fundamental  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  God's  kingdom  upon 
earth  ;  which  is  so  simple,  that  we  cannot  understand  how  its 
truth  could  ever  be  doubted,  until  we  remember  the  farragos  of  non- 
sense which  have  been  propounded  under  its  sanction.  This  simple 
radical  idea  is  merely,  that  as,  in  regard  to  an  individual  man,  God, 
by  the  Saviour,  redeems  not  merely  a  particular  part  of  him,  his 
spirit  alone,  his  soul  alone,  or  his  body  alone,  but  the  whole  man, 
his  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  so  the  redeeming  power  of  Christ  has  for 
its  object  the  deliverance  of  the  entire  human  race,  and  of  the  crea- 
tion in  general,  from  the  yoke  of  sin.  As,  therefore,  the  end  of 
salvation  for  the  individual  is  the  glorification  of  his  nature,  the  end 
of  all  things  in  the  universe  on  the  same  principle  is  the  glorifica- 
tion of  the  universe.  Proceeding  from  this  fundamental  idea,  the 
Revelation  teaches  in  sublime  imagery,  agreeing  perfectly  with  the 
statements  of  our  Lord  and  the  apostles  (which  are  less  formal,  and 
rather  take  the  doctrine  for  granted,  and  thus  are  more  incidental), 
that  a  period  will  come  in  which  not  only,  as  has  already  been  the 
case,  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ  should  prevail  in  secret,  and  guide 
men's  minds,  but  should  also  gain  the  victory  externally,  and  found 
a  kingdom  of  peace  and  righteousness  upon  earth.  Now,  that  with 
the  arrival  of  this  reign  of  peace  there  will  be  connected  on  the 
one  hand,  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  a  resurrection  of 
many  saints  and  pious  men,  and,  on  the  other,  a  previous  mighty 
struggle  on  the  part  of  evil— does  indeed  follow  very  naturally  from 
the  fundamental  idea,  and  the  supposed  development  of  good  and 
evil  ;  but  these  points  are  only  incidental.  The  principal  idea  is 
the  perfect  return  of  the  supremacy  of  good,  the  restoration  of  the 
lost  paradise  to  an  earth  which  has  been  laid  waste  by  sin.  Millions 
desire  this  most  earnestly,  hope  and  pray  for  it  even,  without  ever 
imagining  that  it  is  the  very  doctrine  which  they  think  themselves 
bound  to  oppose,  or  at  least  unable  to  admit,  without  deviating 
from  correct  belief.  Even  the  excellent  Reformers  had  but  an  im- 
perfect notion  of  this  doctrine,  though  it  is  as  simple  as  it  is  sub- 
lime ;  and  for  this  reason,  in  a  great  measure,  that  they  saw  around 
them  senseless  fanatics  who  dishonoured  the  Gospel,  and  caused  un- 
speakable injury  by  the  grossest  misconstructions  and  perversions  of 
this  doctrine. 

It  would  not  have  been  worth  while,  with  our  present  purpose, 
to  say  even  the  little  we  have  said  on  this  subject,  were  there  not 
so  many  well-meaning  men  of  real  piety,  who,  notwithstanding  the 
most  striking  historical  proof,  can  never  prevail  upon  themselves  to 
admit  the  Revelation  to  be  a  genuine  apostolic  production,  and 
therefore  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  canon,  and  thus  to  become  a  rule 
of  faith ;  because  •  they  feel  that  then  they  must  in  consequence 


CXVU1  THE    REVELATION   OF   JOHN. 

admit  the  reign  of  God  upon  earth,  in  their  circle  of  belief,  which 
they  suppose  they  neither  can,  nor  ought  to  do.  May  such  be  led 
to  a  thorough  investigation  of  this  idea,  and  of  all  the  passages  of 
Scripture  which  relate  thereto,  that  the  acknowledgment  of  evan- 
gelical truth  in  this  respect  may  be  promoted,  and  its  fulfilment  be 
rendered  nearer  at  hand  ! 

In  passing  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  historical  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Revelation,  we  must  again  call  to 
mind  the  latter  days  of  the  life  of  John  the  Evangelist.  He  lived, 
as  we  know  with  certainty,  longer  than  any  one  of  the  other  apos- 
tles, that  is,  as  late  as  to  the  end  of  the  first  century.  The  scene 
of  his  successful  labours  at  the  close  of  his  life  was  the  city  of 
Ephesus,  in  the  vicinity  of  which  were  situated  all  those  cities  to 
which  were  directed  the  seven  Epistles  contained  in  the  first  chap- 
ters of  the  Revelation.  Ephesus,  moreover,  was  one  of  the  great 
centres  of  business  in  the  Roman  empire,  and  was  much  frequented 
by  Christians  from  all  countries. 

It  must,  therefore,  be  admitted,  that  it  was  easy  for  the  Ephe- 
sian  church  particularly,  and  indeed  for  the  whole  ancient  church, 
to  arrive  at  the  highest  degree  of  certainty  in  regard  to  the  writings 
of  John.  In  particular,  there  could  be  no  uncertainty  whether 
John  had  composed  so  peculiar,  so  very  remarkable  a  production  as 
the  Revelation.  We  must  therefore  admit,  that  if  among  the  fa- 
thers of  the  church  in  that  region  we  met  with  even  uncertainty  in 
regard  to  its  author,  it  would  be  a  very  suspicious  circumstance  ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  unanimity  in  their  conviction  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  book  must  be  a  very  decisive  testimony  in  its  favour. 
Now  we  meet  with  this  last  to  a  surprising  degree.  First,  we  have 
the  testimony  of  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  in  behalf 
of  the  book.  This  man  was  personally  acquainted  with  several  of 
the  apostles,  and  among  them  with  the  Evangelist  John.  His  tes- 
timony is  therefore  of  the  greatest  consequence.  It  is  true  an  at- 
tempt has  been  made  to  invalidate  it,  on  the  ground  that  only  a  late 
writer,  named  Andreas,  attributes  to  Papias  any  knowledge  of  the 
Revelation  ;  but  careful  consideration  of  the  principal  passage  re- 
specting Papias  in  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.,  iii.  39),  which  certainly 
ought  to  be  thus  examined,  will  show  that  Eusebius  has  given  a 
wrong  representation  concerning  Papias  in  more  than  one  respect, 
and  every  thing  is  in  favour  of  the  supposition,  that  Papias  was  ac- 
quainted with  all  John's  writings.  Eusebius  is  one  of  those  fathers 
of  the  church  who  were  very  much  prejudiced  against  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  millennium,  and  it  is  on  this  account  that  he  so 
strongly  opposes  Papias.  Since  this  ancient  bishop  was  a  principal 
supporter  of  that  doctrine,  his  testimony  may  on  that  account  ap- 
pear partial ;  and  yet  his  close  relation  to  John  cannot  have  per- 


THE   REVELATION   OF   JOHN.  CX1X 

mitted  him,  notwithstanding  all  his  predilection  for  this  doctrine, 
to  attribute  to  that  writer  a  production  which  was  not  his.  Justin 
Martyr,  too,  along  with  Papias,  testifies  in  favour  of  the  apostolic 
origin  of  the  Apocalypse.  He  was,  indeed,  born  in  Palestine,  but 
he  taught  in  Ephesus,  and  there  had  opportunity  to  learn  how 
things  really  were.  Now,  this  father  expressly  declares  the  Revela- 
tion to  have  been  written  by  the  Evangelist  John,  one  of  the  twelve. 
So,  too,  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  one  of  the  cities  to  which  the 
Epistles  in  the  Revelation  are  addressed.  We  cannot  but  pre- 
sume that  such  a  man  would  know  who  was  the  author  of  a  pro- 
duction which  contained  an  Epistle  to  the  church  over  which  he 
presided. 

The  same  is  true  of  Polycarp,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Smyrna, 
to  which  church,  likewise,  an  apocalyptic  Epistle  is  addressed. 
This  man  was  an  immediate  disciple  of  the  Evangelist  John.  Poly- 
carp's  pupil,  Irenseus,  who  removed  from  Asia  Minor  to  the  south 
of  France,  and,  as  has  already  been  observed,  became  bishop  of 
Lyons,  gives  us  an  account  of  Polycarp's  relation  to  John,  and 
makes  use  of  the  Revelation  throughout  his  writings,  without  men- 
tioning even  the  slightest  opposition  to  it.  It  is  also  employed  as 
really  apostolical  by  the  western  fathers,  Turtullian,  Cyprian,  Hip- 
polytus,  &c.,  without  any  mention  of  doubt  as  to  its  canonical  au- 
thority. Still,  it  may  be  said,  none  of  these  were  either  learned  or 
critical  ;  they  found  in  the  Revelation  their  favourite  doctrine  in 
regard  to  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth,  and  therefore  they  readily 
received  the  book  as  a  production  of  John's.  In  decided  opposition 
to  such  remarks,  we  adduce  the  Alexandrian  fathers,  Clement  and 
Origen.  These  were  not  only  the  most  learned  men  of  the  day  and 
the  best  skilled  in  criticism,  but,  in  particular,  were  opponents  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Millennium;  yet  neither  had  any  idea  that  the 
Revelation  of  John  was  not  composed  by  the  Evangelist  of  that 
name.  They  chose  to  get  rid  of  the  odious  contents  of  the  book  by 
a  forced  interpretation,  rather  than  by  opposing  the  tradition  of  the 
whole  church.  A  stronger  combination  of  historical  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  book  is,  in  fact,  hardly  con- 
ceivable !  The  weight  of  this  evidence  is  augmented  by  what  we 
know  respecting  those  who  doubted  the  genuineness  of  the  book. 
Of  this  number  was  a  presbyter  of  the  Roman  church,  whose  name 
was  Grains.  This  man  made  it  a  set  purpose  to  oppose  the  doctrine 
of  the  millennium  ;  and  because  the  defenders  of  it  naturally  ap- 
.  pealed  first  of  all  to  the  Revelation,  he  declared  it  spurious,  without, 
however,  presenting  any  historical  or  critical  reasons  for  doing  so. 
In  order  to  degrade  the  Revelation,  it  was  even  referred  by  him  to 
a  heretic,  Cerinthus,  who  was  said  to  have  written  it  in  John's  name. 
But  in  this  he  clearly  evinced  that  he  was  carried  away  by  his  feel- 


CXX  THE   KEVELATION   OF   JOHN. 

ings,  for  no  one  can  by  any  means  attribute  the  Kevelation  to  an 
intentional  deceiver,  for  this  reason,  that  it  would  have  been  one 
object  with  such  a  man  to  denote  with  precision  the  person  of  the 
Evangelist,  so  as  to  cause  the  work  to  be  regarded  as  his.  This, 
however,  has  not  been  done,  and  thus  we  are  not  permitted  to  take 
any  view  in  opposition  to  it,  except  it  be  that  another  John,  and 
not  the  Evangelist,  composed  it.  This  opinion  was  first  stated 
and  defended  in  a  formal  manner  by  the  learned  Dionysius,  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  a  disciple  of  Origen.  But,  as  this  man  lived  at  so 
late  a  period  that  authentic  oral  tradition  was  no  longer  within  his 
reach,  no  more  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  his  doubts  than  upon  the 
learned  objections  of  more  modern  days.  We  come  therefore  to 
this  result :  All  historical  tradition  is  unanimous  in  behalf  of  John's 
composition  of  the  Revelation. 

Now,  in  order  to  invalidate  this  decided  testimony  of  antiquity, 
very  striking  arguments  ought  to  be  adduced  ;  but  observe  what  are 
the  reasons  which  prevail  upon  modern  investigators  to  deny  that 
the  Evangelist  John  was  the  author  of  the  Revelation,  and  then 
judge  whether  they  are  strong  enough  to  countervail  such  testimony. 
In  enumerating  these  reasons,  I  follow  a  distinguished  scholar  of  the 
present  day,  whom  I  very  much  esteem  and  love  as  my  former  in- 
structor, although  I  differ  entirely  from,  his  views.  I  do  indeed  be- 
lieve him  to  be  in  general  very  impartial  and  unprejudiced ;  but 
nevertheless  I  think  him  to  be  influenced  in  his  judgment  of  the 
Revelation  by  the  force  of  prejudices  which  were  largely  imbibed  by 
the  church,  and  have  been  widely  diffused.1 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  urged  by  this  learned  man  that  John 
never  mentions  himself  in  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  as  the  author  of 
these  writings  ;  would  he  act  differently  then  in  the  Apocalypse  ? 
It  is  true,  he  says  only  that  this  circumstance  is  worthy  of  attention; 
but  as  it  stands  as  one  of  his  arguments,  it  seems  to  have  been  re- 
garded as  of  considerable  importance.  Of  what  consequence,  how- 
ever, is  such  a  difference  in  practice,  since  all  we  can  say  is,  simply, 
that  the  author  chose  in  this  case  to  employ  a  different  form  from 
his  usual  one  ?  What  writer  is  there  who  does  not  act  as  he  pleases 
in  regard  to  such  points  ? 

In  the  second  place,  the  variation  from  his  other  writings  in 
point  of  language  is  adduced  as  an  argument.  The  fact  is  indispu- 
table. The  language  of  the  Gospel  is  pure  Greek,  smooth  and  ac- 
curate ;  that  of  the  Revelation,  on  the  contrary,  is  harsh,  rugged, 
full  of  inaccuracies  of  expression,  and  real  grammatical  mistakes, 
But  it  is  not  true  that  all  difference  in  phraseology  indicates  differ- 
ent writers.  Compare,  e.  g.,  the  earliest  writings  of  Goethe,  Schil- 

1  I  mean  Prof.  De  Wette,  in  his  "  Einleit.  ins  neue  Testament"  (Introd.  to  the  N. 
Testament). 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN.  CXX1 

ler,  Herder,  with  the  latest  productions  of  the  same  authors.  Es- 
pecially take  an  author  who  attempts  to  write  in  a  foreign  lan- 
guage ;  must  not  his  first  essays  be  of  a  totally  different  character 
from  his  later  ones  ?  He  has  not  complete  mastery  of  the  lan- 
guage ;  he  struggles  not  only  with  the  sense,  but  with  the  form ; 
and  this  must  necessarily  make  the  phraseology  even  of  the  most 
practised  intellect  somewhat  cumbrous.  This  is  exactly  the  case 
with  John's  Revelation.  It  was  his  earliest  production  in  the  Greek 
language,  occasioned  by  the  fearful  occurrences  during  Nero's  perse- 
cution. These  cast  the  sympathizing  mind  of  the  beloved  disciple 
of  Jesus  into  deep  meditation,  during  which  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
showed  him  the  future  fortunes  of  the  church,  and  its  final  conquest 
over  Judaism  and  heathenism.  It  was,  therefore,  composed  some 
twenty  years  earlier  than  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  seem  to  have  been 
written,  and  in  a  language  which  to  John,  a  native  of  Palestine, 
must  have  been  a  foreign  one.  Now,  the  Revelation  appears  ex- 
actly like  the  production  of  a  man  who  had  not  yet  acquired  the 
requisite  skill  in  the  Greek  language,  and  as  its  internal  character- 
istics, likewise,  show  that  it  was  written  in  the  early  part  of  John's 
life,  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  it  is  in  fact  impossible  to  see 
how  one  can  ascribe  importance  to  this  circumstance  of  the  differ- 
ence of  style,  in  opposition  to  the  tradition  that  the  Evangelist  John 
was  the  author  of  the  production  ;  the  rather  as  there  is  undeniably 
very  much  in  the  language  which  bears  close  affinity  to  those  writ- 
ings that  are  admitted  to  be  John's. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  third  observation,  that  the  style  of 
the  Revelation  is  in  the  following  respect  very  unlike  that  which  we 
find  in  the  Gospel  and  Epistles,  viz.,  that  the  former  exhibits  a  lively 
creative  fancy,  while,  in  the  latter,  quiet,  deep  feeling  predominates. 
In  regard  to  this  remark,  which  likewise  is  correct,  we  are  to  con- 
sider, first,  that  the  same  individual  in  different  stages  of  mental 
development  will  make  use  of  different  styles  of  expression.  The 
earlier  works  of  the  same  writer  are  accordingly  more  ardent,  more 
imaginative  than  his  later.  Moreover,  the  imagery  in  the  Revela- 
tion is  not  by  any  means  to  be  regarded  as  the  arbitrary  production 
of  a  rich  fancy,  but  rather  as  actual  appearances  to  John's  mind 
from  the  operation  of  the  divine  Spirit  within  him.  I  admit  that 
John  would  not  have  been  selected  as  the  medium  of  these  commu- 
nications of  the  Spirit,  had  there  not  been  in  his  whole  organization 
a  special  adaptation  for  such  impressions  ;  but  still,  susceptibility 
to  them  is  not  the  same  as  positive  productive  fancy.  Finally,  it  is 
Hot  to  be  forgotten  in  this  view,  that  John's  other  writings  are  of  a 
more  historical  or  else  purely  didactic  nature  ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Revelation  is  a  prophetic  production.  It  would  therefore 


CXX11  THE  REVELATION   OF   JOHN. 

be  totally  unnatural  that  the  same  style  should  be  observable  in  the 
Apocalypse  as  in  John's  other  writings. 

The  only  remaining  point  alleged  in  confirmation  of  the  differ- 
ence between  the  Revelation  and  other  writings  of  John  is,  that  they 
exhibit  a  totally  different  doctrinal  aspect.  In  particular,  stress  is 
laid  on  this  circumstance,  that  in  the  Gospel  nothing  at  all  is  found 
of  what  forms  the  main  topic  of  the  Apocalypse,  viz.,  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  visible  coming  of  our  Lord,  and  the  establishment  of  his 
kingdom  upon  earth.  Moreover,  all  that  is  said  in  the  Revelation 
respecting  good  and  bad  angels  is  of  a  more  Jewish  cast,  we  are  told, 
than  we  should  expect  John's  views  to  have  been,  from  examining 
his  other  writings.  It  would  appear  that,  if  this  be  really  so,  it  is  a 
reason  of  some  weight  against  the  genuineness  of  the  book  ;  for  we 
cannot  suppose  the  apostles  to  have  altered  their  doctrinal  views, 
and,  plainly,  difference  in  the  character  of  the  writings  could  not 
affect  the  doctrine,  as  both  in  historical  and  prophetical  productions 
there  must  exist  the  same  fundamental  views  on  the  part  of  the 
writer.  Now,  the  remark  is  indisputably  correct,  but  the  true  reason 
of  the  fact  has  been  misapprehended.  For,  first,  the  same  differ- 
ence which  is  exhibited  between  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse, also  appears,  on  comparison,  between  the  Gospel  of  John  and 
the  first  three  Gospels.  These  latter,  like  the  Revelation,  present 
many  doctrines  and  views  agreeable  to  the  Jews,  particularly  the 
visible  coming  of  our  Lord  to  assume  his  kingdom  upon  earth  ;  while 
nothing  of  all  this  is  touched  upon  by  the  Gospel  of  John,  notwith- 
standing there  was  ample  occasion  for  doing  so.  It  does  not  thence 
follow,  however,  that  either  John  or  the  others  err  in  representing 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  Christ,  since  the  same  person  may  have 
spoken  sometimes  spiritually,  as  in  John's  discourses,  and  some- 
times in  a  Judaizing  manner,  as  according  to  the  other  Evangelists. 
The  correct  solution  of  this  difficulty  is  to  be  sought  solely  in  the 
special  purpose  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  with  which  the  first  Epistle 
stands  in  such  intimate  connection  that  it  is  not  strange  it  should 
partake  of  the  same  character.  The  two  other  Epistles  are  too  short 
to  be  here  taken  into  consideration.  For  above  (in  the  third  chap- 
ter in  speaking  of  the  Gospel  of  John),  it  was  observed,  that  this 
Evangelist  had  a  particular  class  of  persons  in  view  in  his  work,  viz., 
men  similar  to  the  later  Gnostics,  and  who  in  certain  views  coincided 
with  them  perfectly.  In  particular,  they,  like  the  Gnostics,  specu- 
lated on  Divine  things  in  a  peculiar  manner,  and  sought  to  idealize 
the  real  facts  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  more  than  the  true  apostolic 
doctrine  permitted.  These  men,  among  whom  were  many  very  sen- 
sible and  well-meaning  persons,  were  those  whom  John  had  particu- 
larly in  view  in  the  composition  of  his  Gospel.  With  apostolic 
wisdom  he  avoided  in  this  work  every  thing  which  could  offend  the 


CONCLUSION.  CXXU1 

prejudices  of  these  persons.  Many  Jewish  ideas,  which  had  a  very 
good  and  genuine  foundation,  and,  according  to  the  first  Gospels, 
were  expressed  by  the  Saviour  himself,  he  kept  back,  becoming  in  a 
manner  a  Gnostic  to  the  Gnostics,  without  doing  the  least  injury, 
however,  to  the  cause  of  truth.  He  depicted  Christianity,  there- 
fore, to  their  minds,  just  as  they  could  most  easily  comprehend  it, 
convinced  that  when  once  they  had  seized  this  idea,  they  would 
gradually  learn  to  understand  it  thoroughly. 

If,  now,  we  adhere  steadfastly  to  this  point  of  view,  it  will  ap- 
pear perfectly  intelligible,  how  the  same  John  who  wrote  thus  in 
the  Gospel,  should  appear  to  express  himself  so  differently  in  the 
Eevelation,  in  the  composition  of  which  no  such  reference  existed ; 
though  still  he  was  always  governed  by  the  same  doctrinal  views  at 
every  period  of  his  life.  And  thus  we  must  declare,  that  no  one  of 
these  reasons  is  calculated  to  disturb  us  in  regard  to  the  correctness 
and  truth  of  the  tradition  of  the  first  centuries  after  Christ.  If  the 
repugnance  which  is  felt  towards  the  contents  of  the  Apocalypse  be 
only  conquered,  men  will  soon  cease  to  rate  so  highly  the  reasons 
which  are  adduced  against  its  apostolic  origin,  and  to  think  so  little 
of  the  importance  of  the  unanimous  tradition  of  antiquity.  And 
that  this  may  soon  happen  is  the  more  to  be  wished,  as  the  progres- 
sive development  of  the  church  makes  the  Kevelation  more  and 
more  important  in  testing  what  is  now  occurring  among  Christians, 
and  what  awaits  them  in  the  immediate  future  ! 


CONCLUSION. 

• '  <  4    • 

HAVING  thus  passed  through  the  entire  series  of  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament,  taking  notice  of  the  critical  questions  in  regard 
to  them,  we  will  now,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  present  a  com- 
pendious view  of  the  results  at  which  we  have  arrived. 

We  find  then  most,  and  the  most  important,  of  the  writings  in 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  so  unanimously  acknowledged  in 
ancient  times,  and  so  universally  made  use  of  as  apostolical  in  later 
days,  that  there  cannot  be  the  least  doubt  in  regard  to  them.  They 
are  on  this  account  denominated  Homologoumena,  universally-ac- 
knowledged writings,  and  form  the  main  sources  of  the  doctrine  and 
history  of  the  Christian  church.  Among  these  Homologoumena,  as 
is  stated  by  Eusabius  so  curly  as  the  commencement  of  the  fourth 
century,  were  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  thir- 
teen Pauline  Epistles,  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  first  of 
John.  If  we  attend  only  to  the  voice  of  Christian  antiquity,  as 
Eusobius  correctly  observes,  the  Apocalypse  also  does  in  reality  be- 


CXX1V  CONCLUSION. 

long  among  the  Homologoumena.  But  the  fortune  of  this  book  has 
been  so  peculiar,  that  some  have  not  even  been  willing  to  class  it 
among  the  Antilegomena,  but  have  ranked  it  with  the  writings 
which  are  of  a  profane  character,  and  are  to  be  utterly  rejected. 
Eusebius  was  therefore  in  great  perplexity  to  what  class  he  could 
properly  assign  the  Kevelation.  As  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
its  author  is  unknown,  merely  ;  its  genuineness  is  not  disputed.  It 
belongs,  therefore,  to  the  class  of  the  Antilegomena  only  so  far  as 
this,  that  its  position  in  the  canon  was  disputed  ;  the  relation  of 
the  author  to  the  Apostle  Paul  not  being  unanimously  acknowledged 
in  the  church. 

Properly,  the  class  of  the  Antilegomena  among  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  comprehends  the  two  smaller  Epistles  of  John,  the 
Epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  and  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter. 
These  five  books  were  never  universally  acknowledged  and  used  in 
the  ancient  church.  More  recent  investigation  has  decided  in  favour 
of  the  first  three.  The  two  smaller  Epistles  of  John  are  certainly 
apostolical,  and  from  the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  John  ;  that  of 
James  was  not,  indeed,  written  by  one  of  the  twelve,  but  by  a 
brother  of  our  Lord,  who  held  such  a  prominent  rank  in  the  ancient 
church  as  placed  him,  like  Paul,  fully  on  a  level  with  the  apostles. 
As  to  the  two  writings  last  in  the  list,  however,  it  appears  justly 
somewhat  doubtful  whether  they  are  productions  of  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  The  Epistle  of  Jude  is,  indeed,  certainly  genuine,  but  as 
certainly  not  apostolical ;  and,  as  history  attributes  to  this  brother 
of  our  Lord  no  very  prominent  station  or  agency,  the  Epistle  seems 
not  properly  to  belong  to  the  canon.  It  can  be  supported  only  by 
the  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  which  is  not  itself  certainly  of  apostoli- 
cal origin.  For,  in  regard  to  the  latter,  a  consideration  of  the  cir- 
cumstances makes  it  impossible  to  establish  its  genuineness  objec- 
tively on  valid  grounds,  although  it  may  be  made  subjectively 
probable. 

These  results  of  the  most  careful  critical  investigation  of  the  New 
Testament  are  very  satisfactory.  For,  if  we  could  wish  that  the 
genuineness  and  canonical  character  of  the  Antilegomena  might  be 
established  by  as  valid  arguments  as  we  can  adduce  in  behalf  of  the 
Homologoumena,  still  it  must  be  admitted  that  those  books  upon 
which  some  suspicion  rests,  are  the  very  books,  of  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings,  with  which  we  can  most  easily  dispense.  The  chief 
and  best  of  these  writings  are  the  very  ones  whose  genuineness  and 
apostolic  authority  are  certified  as  strongly  as  possible. 

If,  now,  we  inquire  into  the  relation  between  the  external  his- 
torical genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  their 
internal  efficacy  and  determinate  power  over  the  faith  and  life  of 
the  individual,  and  of  the  whole  community  of  Christians,  it  is  cer- 


CONCLUSION.  CXXV 

tainly  undeniable,  that  the  former  by  itself  decides  nothing  in  favour 
of  the  latter ;  but  still,  on  account  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
church,  demonstration  of  such  genuineness  is  by  no  means  unim- 
portant or  indifferent.  It  is  clear  that  we  may  regard  the  writings 
of  another  religious  system,  the  Zend-Avesta  of  the  Parsees,  or  the 
Koran  of  the  Mahometans,  as  genuine,  and  as  having  proceeded 
from  the  immediate  circle  of  adherents  which  the  founder  of  that 
system  of  religion  possessed,  without  thereby  attributing  to  it  any 
internal  efficacy  and  determining  power  over  the  heart  and  life. 
But  it  cannot  be  said  that  a  conviction  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
apostolical  origin  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  likewise,  is 
a  matter  of  indifference.  It  is  rather  of  great  consequence  in  its 
connection  with  the  church,  i.  e.,  the  great  community  founded  by 
our  Saviour,  and  actuated  and  sustained  by  his  Spirit.  You  may 
prove  the  genuineness  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  to  him 
who  is  not  within  the  pale  of  the  church,  or  under  its  spiritual  in- 
fluence, and  he  may  even  acknowledge  it  upon  incontestible  histori- 
cal grounds  ;  but,  as  Christ,  and  his  apostles  themselves,  are  of  no 
consequence  in  relation  to  his  internal  life,  this  proof  has  no  more 
effect  upon  his  faith  or  his  life,  than  is  produced  upon  those  of  the 
scholar  who  declares  the  Zend-Avesta  to  be  a  genuine  work  of  Zo- 
roaster. Far  otherwise  is  it  with  him  who  lives  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Christian  church.  Here  he  cannot  completely  withdraw  himself 
from  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  which  operates  upon  his 
heart  from  his  earliest  youth  ;  he  feels  himself  spiritually  affected, 
and  in  a  manner  constrained  by  it.  It  is  true  that  sinful  man  very 
often  strives  against  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  being  trou- 
blesome to  him,  because  it  does  not  permit  him  to  continue  sinning 
so  freely  and  peaceably  as  he  could  wish.  In  such  case  he  seeks  to 
obtain  plausible  grounds  on  which  he  may  evade  the  force  of  the 
Spirit's  influence.  One  such  plausible  ground  is  often  presented  by 
the  supposition  that  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  are  spuri- 
ous, whereby  the  extraordinary  character  of  our  Saviour,  with  the 
sublime  impression  he  made  on  the  hearts  of  men,  is  encompassed 
with  doubt,  and  thus  its  effect  is  diminished.  To  members  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  therefore,  a  firm  conviction  that  the  Scriptures  are 
genuine,  is  of  the  highest  consequence  ;  the  opposite  opinion,  yea, 
uncertainty  merely,  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  sacred  writings, 
is  ordinarily  the  natural  concomitant  of  sin.  Such  a  sentiment  hin- 
ders the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  manifests  itself,  in  a 
manner  not  to  be  mistaken,  to  every  simple,  plain  mind,  on  perusal 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  exhibits  its  full  strength  only  when  the 
heart  feels  a  quiet  faith,  undisturbed  by  any  doubt.  Hence  the 
conversion  of  many  has  taken  rise  from  their  acknowledgment  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  New  Testament  writings ;  and  moreover,  the 


CXXV1  CONCLUSION. 

apostacy  of  many  from  the  truth  has  arisen  out  of  the  circumstance 
that  they  denied  the  authenticity  of  these  books.  We  may  there- 
fore say,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  genuineness  of  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament  is  of  essential  efficacy  where  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  a  susceptibility  to  its  operations  exist  in  any 
degree.  To  him  who  has  already  turned  aside  entirely  from  the 
truth,  and  who  resists  it  with  an  unfriendly  mind,  a  conviction  of  the 
genuineness  of  these  books  will  be  of  little  use,  unless  his  opposition 
be  first  broken  by  the  power  of  grace.  To  him  who  is  converted, 
born  again,  the  sure  conviction  of  their  genuineness  will  always  be  a 
pleasing  concomitant  of  grace,  and  will  excite  his  gratitude  ;  but,  as 
he  has  experienced  in  his  heart  the  divine  power  which  dwells  in  the 
Scriptures,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  always  be  the  pro- 
per foundation  of  his  faith,  which  would  support  him  even  though 
he  had  no  historical  proofs  in  behalf  of  the  sacred  books.  Persons, 
however,  who  have  neither  experienced  a  perfect  change  of  heart  and 
mind,  nor  are  actuated  by  a  positively  hostile  spirit,  but  ardently 
desire  the  former,  though  they  are  often  assailed  by  doubts  and  un- 
certainties, will  find  in  the  firm  historical  foundation  of  Scripture 
something  on  which  they  may  lean  at  first,  and  from  which  they 
may  then  be  gradually  led  to  the  full  knowledge  of  salvation.  For, 
if  it  be  only  admitted  that  such  a  life  as  that  which  the  Scriptures 
represent  our  Saviour's  to  have  been  was  really  spent,  that  such 
words  as  they  communicate  to  us  from  him  were  really  spoken,  the 
obvious  question  is,  Whence  came  such  a  phenomenon  ?  What  is 
its  import  to  the  world  ?  to  me  ? 

But,  it  may  here  be  asked,  if  the  case  is  thus,  how  happens  it 
that  God  has  permitted  many  plausible  objections  to  exist  against 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  some  cannot  even  be 
freed  wholly  from  suspicion  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  more  consist- 
ent with  the  purpose  of  the  Scriptures,  had  all  the  books  been  sup- 
ported by  so  numerous  and  so  completely  incontestible  testimonies, 
that  not  even  a  doubt  concerning  them  could  ever  have  entered  any 
one's  mind  ?  It  may  indeed  seem  so  to  short-sighted  man.  But 
his  desires  would  not  stop  here,  they  would  reach  still  further.  He 
would  wish  to  have  a  Bible  without  various  readings,  a  biblical  his- 
tory free  from  the  slightest  variations,  in  short,  Jehovah  himself  em- 
bodied in  the  letter  of  the  word.  The  living  God,  who  is  eternal 
wisdom  and  love,  has  not  thought  any  thing  of  this  kind  suitable 
for  mankind  ;  otherwise  he  would  undoubtedly  have  effected  it  for 
their  benefit ;  and  the  reasons  why  he  has  not  we  may  at  least  con- 
jecture, even  with  our  weak  powers.  On  the  one  hand,  it  would 
have  become  easier  for  man  to  confound  the  word  and  the  Spirit 
dwelling  in  it  with  the  letter ;  for,  even,  as  the  case  now  is,  this 
mistake  has  not  been  entirely  avoided,  from  the  want  of  spirituality 


CONCLUSION.  CXXVU 

in  many  men.  On  the  other  hand,  the  guilt  of  many  persons  would 
have  been  augmented,  since  they  now  have  at  least  plausible  reasons 
for  their  opposition  to  the  truth,  but  in  the  other  case  would  have 
had  no  such  extenuation,  and  still  would  have  retained  their  hos- 
tility to  God's  word.  We  may  therefore  declare,  that  the  character 
of  Scripture,  in  this  respect  likewise,  corresponds  most  perfectly 
with  the  necessities  of  human  nature,  as  well  as  with  the  designs  of 
God,  notwithstanding  all  its  apparent  imperfections  and  defici- 
encies. 

The  observations  we  have  here  made  in  conclusion  are,  moreover, 
such  as  are  best  suited  to  present  the  correct  view  concerning  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of  criticism. 
For  this  portion  of  God's  word  has  so*few  historical  evidences  in  its 
favour,  excepting  those  comprehended  within  its  own  compass,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  frame  such  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of 
its  books  ad  we  are  able  to  exhibit  in  behalf  of  the  New  Testament. 
This  want  of  evidence  proceeds  in  part  from  the  very  great  antiquity 
of  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  almost  all  com- 
posed before  there  existed  any  literature  among  the  Greeks,  and 
before  the  Romans  were  so  much  as  known  by  name  ;  and  in  part, 
also,  from  the  state  of  seclusion  which  the  nations  of  the  old  world, 
generally,  and  particularly  the  Jews,  always  maintained.  The  Per- 
sians, Syrians,  Egyptians,  knew  scarce  any  thing  of  the  literature  of 
the  Hebrews  ;  and,  had  they  even  been  acquainted  with  it,  the 
circumstance  would  have  been  of  little  advantage  to  us,  as  we  have 
but  few  writings  of  a  date  anterior  to  the  time  of  Christ  which 
originated  with  these  nations.  In  these  few,  moreover,  we  find 
hardly  any  mention  of  the  JewTs  and  their  productions.  Hence,  in 
investigating  the  earliest  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  critic 
has  no  other  resource  than  a  careful  examination  of  the  contents  of 
the  books  themselves,  and  a  comparison  of  them  with  each  other. 
Were  this  examination  and  comparison  invariably  conducted  with  a 
believing  and  humble  disposition,  not  the  slightest  objection  could 
be  made,  and  we  might  quietly  await  the  results  of  such  a  proce- 
dure ;  but,  when  the  minds  of  investigators  deviate  from  the  proper 
spirit  and  disposition,  it  is  very  evident  how  easily  such  an  inquiry, 
which  is  in  its  nature  somewhat  uncertain  and  precarious,  may  lead 
to  pernicious  results.  Every  one  will,  in  such  a  case,  determine  the 
matter  according  to  his  subjective  ideas  and  views,  without  obtaining 
any  objective  grounds  of  judgment  from  investigation.  If  we  only 
look  at  the  actual  state  of  the  matter,  entirely  aside  from  the  holy 
character  of  the  book,  we  shall  be  convinced  that  such  a  course  of 
investigation  could  hardly  afford  any  useful  result,  even  with  the 
best  intentions.  A  book  is  presented  to  us,  which  contains  the 
relics  of  a  nation's  literature  during  a  period  of  1200  years.  We 


CXXV111  CONCLUSION. 

derive  all  that  we  can  know  of  the  history,  the  manners,  the  special 
circumstances  of  this  people,  excepting  a  few  points,  from  this  book 
alone.  Thus  it  is  at  once  the  object  and  the  norm  of  investigation. 
Since,  moreover,  in  regard  to  many  of  the  writings  in  it  we  have  no 
statement  as  to  their  author  and  the  time  of  their  composition,  the 
investigation  of  these  writings  cannot  hut  have  always  a  character 
of  uncertainty.  If  we  were  only  familiarly  acquainted  with  the 
history  of  a  single  nation  in  close  vicinity  to  the  Jews,  and  found 
in  its  literature  constant  reference  to  the  Jewish  writings,  we  might 
then,  by  drawing  a  parallel,  communicate  more  stability  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  we  have  no  such  advantage, 
and  must  content  ourselves  with  individual  notices,  which  have 
come  down  to  us  from  the  most  ancient  times  of  the  nations  with 
which  the  Jews  came  in  contact.  It  was  not  till  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  about  300  years  B.  C.,  that  the  Jews,  with  their 
literature,  became  known  to  the  Greeks,  through  whom  we  have 
received  much  important  information  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. For,  as  the  Jews,  after  that  period,  when  they  fell  under 
Greek  dominion,  made  themselves  acquainted  with  the  Greek  liter- 
ature, and  to  some  extent  themselves  wrote  in  Greek,  as  e.  g.,  the 
celebrated  Jewish  writers,  Josephus  and  Philo,  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Greeks  began  to  take  an  interest  in  the  Jews  and  their 
religious  institutions.  From  this  mixture  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
life  proceeded  the  celebrated  Greek  Version  of  the  Seventy.  This, 
according  to  the  account  of  the  ancients,  was  executed  under  the 
Egyptian  monarch  Ptolemy  Philadeljphus,  at  the  instance  of  the 
learned  Demetrius  Phalereus,  about  the  year  270  B.  C.  It  is  true, 
the  Old  Testament  was  not  probably  translated  all  at  once,  but,  at 
any  rate,  even  according  to  the  most  recent  opinion,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  entirely  translated  into  Greeek  when  Jesus  Sirach  was 
composed,  i.  e.,  about  the  year  130  B.  C.  Consequently,  it  is  placed 
beyond  a  doubt  that  the  whole  Old  Testament,  as  we  have  it,  exist- 
ed in  Palestine  in  the  Hebrew  language  long  before  the  time  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and  in  a  Greek  version  in  the  other  countries 
of  the  Koman  Empire,  particularly  in  Egpyt,  where  there  resided 
so  large  a  number  of  Jews,  and  they  possessed  so  great  privileges, 
that  they  had  even  built  a  temple  in  the  city  of  Leontopolis  in  close 
imitation  of  that  at  Jerusalem.  In  Egypt  the  collection  of  the 
Apocryphal  books  likewise,  which  were  confessedly  written  in  Greek, 
was  inserted  in  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  spread 
abroad  by  the  version  of  the  seventy  interpreters,  and  from  this 
version  they  were  introduced  into  the  Latin  church-version  (the  so- 
called  Vulgate},  thus  obtaining  the  same  authority  as  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  authority  they  possess  at  the  present 
day  in  the  Catholic  church.  As,  however,  they  are  not  expressly 


CONCLUSION.  CXXlX 

cited  in  the  New  Testament,1  and  are  wholly  wanting  in  the  He- 
brew canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  Luther  rightly  separated  them 
from  the  rest,  but  appended  them  to  the 'books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  "  Writings  not  to  be  equally  esteemed  with  Holy  Writ,  but 
still  profitable  and  excellent  for  perusal."  The  Reformed  Church, 
however,  has  gone  still  farther,  and  dissevered  them  entirely  from 
the  collection  of  sacred  books,  in  order  to  prevent  them  from 
being  confounded  with  the  inspired  word.  Hence  arose  this  great 
evil,  that  the  historical  connection  between  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, which  is  so  well  exhibited  in  the  narrative  writings  of  the 
Apocrypha,  was  totally  sundered  ;  and  this  connection  is  by  no 
means  a  matter  of  indifference  to  believers,  because  it  is  only 
through  it  that  God's  providence  towards  his  people  can  be  regarded 
in  the  light  of  an  united  whole.  Hence  it  would  seem  best  to  re- 
tain the  apocryphal  writings  along  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
designating,  indeed,  the  distinction  between  them  and  the  canonical 
books. 

Thus  much,  then,  according  to  these  statements,  we  know  cer- 
tainly from  historical  testimony,  that  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  now 
have  it,  existed  more  .than  a  century  before  Christ.  It  is  true  the 
learned  would  be  gratified  to  know  a  great  deal  more  respecting  the 
formation  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  respecting  the  authors 
of  the  individual  writings,  &c.  But,  in  view  merely  of  the  relation 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  faith  of  the  present  day,  the  knowledge 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  in  a  complete  collected  form  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  is  sufficient  to  afford  us  a  firm  conviction  of  the  gen- 
uineness and  importance  of  its  books.  Now,  that  the  existing  Old 
Testament  was  generally  diffused  and  in  use  among  the  Jews,  is  at- 
tested by  the  Jewish  writers  of  the  apostolic  times,  who  employed 
the  Greek  language  in  their  writings.  Philo,  in  Egypt,  and  Jose- 
pirns,  in  Palestine,  make  use  of  the  Old  Testament  throughout  their 
works,  thereby  confirming  the  custom  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
also  everywhere  refers  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  manner  in  which 
the  Old  Testament  is  cited  by  the  New,  and  the  definite  declara- 
tions in  regard  to  the  former  which  are  contained  in  the  latter,  are 
decisive  as  to  the  faith  of  Christians  of  the  present  day.  These 
afford  us  more  than  the  mere  assurance  that  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  authentic  ;  this  might  be  admitted,  without  the 
slightest  acknowledgment  of  the  value  of  the  writings,  since  the 
most  wretched  and  even  hurtful  productions  may  be  perfectly  genuine. 
They  declare  in  the  most  precise  manner  the  Divine  character  of 
these  books,  which  of  course  presupposes  their  genuineness,  for  it  is 

1  Allusions  to  them  are  pointed  out  by  Steir  in  his  "  Andeutungen  fiir  Glaubwtir- 
dige  Schrifterklarung"  (or  Hints  towards  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures),  p. 
486,  seq. 

VOL.  I.— 9 


CXXX  CONCLUSION. 

very  evident  that  no  writings  could  be  Divine  which  originated  in 
deceit  and  imposture. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  citations  from 
almost  all  the  writings  in  the  Old  Testament.1  The  principal  books, 
as,  e.  g.,  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  are  cited 
very  often,  and  even  those  less  important  are  referred  to  here  and 
there  in  the  New  Testament.  A  very  few  are  entirely  neglected  ;' 
of  this  number,  in  particular,  is  Solomon's  Song,  which  is  nowhere 
cited  in  all  the  New  Testament.  This  circumstance  is  certainly  not 
accidental.  Perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  conclude,  that  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  are  not  at  all  mentioned  in  the  New, 
should  be  regarded  very  much  as  the  so-called  deutero-canonical 
books  of  the  New  Testament ;  though  the  circumstance  that  they 
are  not  cited  in  the  New  Testament  can  be  nowise  objected  against 
their  genuineness,  any-more  than  the  position  of  a  New  Testament 
book  among  the  Antilegomena  can  be  considered  as  a  proof  of  its 
spuriousness.  These  non-cited  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  with 
the  exception  of  the  three  minor  prophets,  probably  present  some- 
thing like  a  transition  to  the  apocryphal  books.  At  all  events,  the 
fact  that  these  books  are  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament 
should  inculcate  upon  us  caution  in  making  use  of  them. 

Of  more  importance  than  the  citations,  are  such  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  as  contain  decisive  declarations  respecting  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  whole.  These  occur  particularly  in  the  discourses 
of  our  Lord  himslf.  Jesus  calls  the  law  (Matth.  v.  17  seq.)  eternal, 
imperishable.  Heaven  and  earth,  he  says,  shall  pass  away,  but  not 
one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  law  shall  pass  away  till  all  be  fulfilled.  In  a 
similar  manner,  in  Luke  xxiv.  44,  prophecy  concerning  Christ  is  re- 
presented as  something  running  through  the  law  of  Moses,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  and  as  necessary  to  be  fulfilled.  In  Luke 
xvi.  17,  also,  all  created  things  (heaven,  and  earth),  it  is  said,  will 
sooner  and  more  easily  pass  away  than  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 
Thus  a  lofty  divine  character  is  clearly  claimed  in  behalf  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  may,  indeed,  be  observed  on  the  contrary,  that,  in 
the  passages  referred  to,  allusion  is  made,  not  to  the  whole  Old 
Testament,  but  only  to  particular  books,  the  Mosaic  law,  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  But,  first,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  that  the 
expression,  Law,  or  Law  and  Prophets,  stands  frequently  for  the 
whole  Old  Testament,  just  as  Gospel  stands  for  the  whole  New 

1  The  Old  Testament  is  expressly  cited  in  the  New  more  than  four  hundred  times, 
and  in  a  much  larger  number  of  places  there  are  allusions  to  the  Old  Testament. 

2  The  Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Solomon's  Song,   as  also 
the  minor  Prophets,  Obadiah,  Nahum,  and  Zephaniah.     It  is  most  proper,  however,  to 
consider  the  twelve  Prophets  as  one  work;  and  then  the  fact  that  these  three   are  not 
cited  loses  its  force.     But  in  regard  to  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  the  circum- 
stance that  they  are  not  cited  is  not  unimportant. 


CONCLUSION.  CXXX1 

Testament.  Moreover,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  was 
the  usual  division  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  among  the 
Jews.  The  first  part  of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  comprehends 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  second  part  falls  into  two  sub-divisions, 
first  the  historical  writings,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings,  and,  secondly,  the  three  larger  and  12  minor  Prophets.  In 
the  third  part  (which  in  Luke  xxiv.  44,  is  termed  Psalms,  from  the 
principal  book  which  it  contains),  belong  moreover,  besides  the 
Psalms,  the  book  of  Job,  the  writings  of  Solomon,  the  book  of 
Daniel,  and  some  later  historical  books,  and,  lastly,  the  book  of 
Chronicles.  But  entirely  aside  from  this  Jewish  division  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  connection  of  these  passages  with  the  citations 
clearly  shows,  that  they  are  intended  to  refer  to  the  whole  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  citations  in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old  are  not 
adduced  as  mere  confirmation,  drawn  from  human  productions  of 
great  value,  but  as  irrefragable  proofs  from  sacred  books.  This 
power  of  proof  could  have  belonged  to  them  only  from  the  fact 
that  they  were  not  bare  compositions  of  human  wisdom,  but  those 
•  of  men  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  (Compare  2  Pet.  i. 
20,  21.)  Now,  as  citations  from  all  the  principal  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament  occur  in  the  New,  the  general  declarations  we  have 
mentioned  must  of  course  refer  to  all  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, so  as  to  attribute  to  them  a  common  character,  viz.,  that  of  a 
divine  origin. 

To  this  it  is  to  be  added,  that  throughout  Scripture  there  runs 
the  doctrine  of  a  deep,  essential  connection  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  As  the  Old  Testament  is  always  pointing  onward 
to  the  New,  so  the  latter  is  always  pointing  backward  to  the  Old,  as 
its  necessary  precedent.  Consequently,  both  alike  bear  the  charac- 
ter of  a  divine  revelation  ;  only,  this  revelation  manifests  itself  in  a 
gradual  development.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  appears  in  its  com- 
mencement as  the  seed  of  the  subsequent  plant  ;  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  living  plant  itself  is  exhibited.  On  account  of  this 
relation,  there  cannot  be  any  thing  in  the  Old  Testament  specifically 
different  from  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament ;  only, 
the  form  of  presenting  the  same  thing  is  at  one  time  more  or  less 
plain  and  direct  than  at  another. 

These  declarations  of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  the  Old 
are,  to  Christians,  not  mere  private  assertions  of  wise,  good,  and 
pious  men,  such  as  many  in  our  day  are  in  the  habit  of  supposing 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  to  have  been  ;  they  exhibit,  rather,  authentic 
information  respecting  the  real  character  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  as  abso- 
lute truth  itself,  who  alone  knew  the  Father,  and,  as  the  source  of 
all  real  revelation  from  him,  can  have  made  such  declarations  con- 


CXXX11  CONCLUSION. 

cerning  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  only  with  the  strictest 
sincerity  (as  is  the  case  with  every  thing  he  did  or  said),  and  must 
have  designed  that  they  should  be  a  rule  to  his  church,  since  his 
whole  life  on  earth  had  but  one  single  aim,  that  of  developing  the 
heavenly  and  eternal  to  the  created  world.  Thus,  had  Jesus  at- 
tributed the  character  of  eternity  to  a  production  to  which  it  by  no 
means  belonged,  he  would  have  counteracted  his  own  sole  purpose. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  apostles,  who,  in  that  respect  to  which  our 
attention  is  now  directed,  are  to  be  considered  as  upon  a  level  with 
Christ  himself ;  they  being  pure  organs  of  the  mind  of  Christ ; 
though,  in  themselves  considered,  they  were  but  sinful  men,  and 
desired  to  be  so  regarded.  Under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
they  acknowledged  the  eternal  character  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
their  declarations  on  this  point  are  not  (any  more  than  those  of  our 
Lord  himself)  mere  subjective,  private  statements,  they  are  rather 
authentic  accounts  respecting  the  character  of  this  part  of  Holy 
Writ.  In  considering  the  force  of  the  apostolic  declarations  concern- 
ing the  authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  we 
are  to  regard,  not  merely  the  citations  of  individual  passages  from 
it,  or  general  statements  respecting  its  authors,  such  as  their  being 
at  one  time  represented  as  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (2  Pet.  i.  21), 
and  at  another  Holy  Scripture  being  called  instruction  unto  salva- 
tion (2  Tim.  iii.  15),  which,  as  the  New  Testament  was  not  then 
collected,  can  refer  only  to  the  Old  ;  but  we  are  especially  to  ob- 
serve the  manner  in  which  the  citations  are  adduced  from  the  Old 
Testament.  This  is  most  remarkable  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
although  similar  passages  also  occur  in  the  Gospels  and  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  In  this  remarkable  Epistle,  God  or  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  constantly  named  as  the  speaker,  in  the  passages 
which  are  adduced  from  the  Old  Testament ;  and  this  not  only  in 
regard  to  those  which  are  accompanied  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
expression,  "  God  said,"  but  also  to  those  in  which  some  man  speaks, 
for  instance  David,  as  author  of  a  Psalm.  Herein  is  clearly  exhib- 
ited the  view  of  the  author  in  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  writers  of  it.  He  considered  that  God  was,  by  his  Holy  Spirit, 
the  living  agent  and  speaker  in  them  all,  so  that,  consequently,  the 
Holy  Scriptures  were  to  him  purely  a  work  of  God,  although 
brought  forward  by  men.  That  the  genuineness  of  these  writings 
was  equally  certain  to  him,  follows  of  course,  because  that  which  is 
divine,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  can  never  appear  in  the  form 
of  a  forgery. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  such  a  proof  in  behalf  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  valid  only  for  him  who  has  become  convinced,  by  living  ex- 
perience, of  the  truth  of  God  in  Christ  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
Spirit  which  actuated  his  disciples.  Where  this  truth  and  infalli- 


CONCLUSION.  CXXX111 

bility  are  either  flatly  denied,  or  even  merely  doubted,  the  observa- 
tions we  have  made  may  be  of  no  weight.  For  such  persons  we  can- 
not frame  an  argument  in  behalf  of  the  Old  Testament  which  shall 
be  valid  against  all  objections.  As  to  us  who  live  according  to 
Christ,  and  to  whom  the  power  of  his  Spirit  is  accessible,  every  thing 
must  radiate  from  the  centre  of  the  New  Testament  scenes,  viz.,  the 
Saviour  himself.  The  conviction  of  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead 
establishes  the  Old  Testament  retrospectively,  and  also  establishes 
the  New  Testament  prospectively,  by  the  promise  of  his  Spirit, 
which  should  bring  all  those  things  which  he  had  said  to  his  disci- 
ples to  their  remembrance.  On  this  conviction  the  assurance  of  the 
genuineness  and  divinity  of  Scripture  forever  rests,  and  much  more 
securely,  than  upon  any  external  historical  proofs  ;  for  it  wholly 
takes  away  the  possibility  of  an  attack  in  any  quarter  on  the  part 
of  human  sophistry,  and  leaves  assurance  safe  in  the  unassailable 
sanctuary  of  our  interior  life. 


INTRODUCTION, 


§  1.  ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  GOSPEL-COLLECTION.* 

As  the  revelations  of  God  to  man  assume  two  principal  forms — 
viz.,  the  Law  and  the  Gospel ;  so,  the  Scriptures  are  divided  into 
two  parts — of  which  the  first  relates  to  God's  covenant  with  man  in 
the  law  ;  the  second,  to  the  covenant  in  grace.  Since  the  living 
Word  of  God — the  eternal  cause  of  these  ever-binding  covenants — 
lives  in  those  writings  which  refer  to  Hhe  covenants,  the  writings 
themselves  have  been  denominated  Old  and  New  Covenants  (rma= 
diaO/iKT].^  The  Vulgate  renders  it  Testarnentum.  Compare  2  Cor. 
iii.  14).  It  is  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  that  we  here 
direct  our  attention  ;  these  always,  however,  necessarily  presuppose 
the  Old  Testament.  The  New  Testament  springs  from  the  Old,  as 
the  tree  from  its  root ;  while  the  Old  appears  perfected  in  the 
New.  (Matth.  v.  17.)  We  do  not  find  the  New  Testament,  as  a 
collected  whole,  till  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  In  the 
course  of  this  century  three  smaller  collections  were  united  into  one 
— viz.,  the  Gospels,  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  the  general  Epistles, 
together  with  some  more  isolated  writings,  which  form  the  transi- 
tions and  the  conclusion — viz.,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

The  origin  of  the  first  of  these  smaller  collections,  the  evayye/U- 
KOV,  chiefly  claims  our  attention.  The  collecting  of  our  four  canoni- 
cal Gospels  is  lost  in  the  remotest  Christian  antiquity.  As  far  back 
as  the  historical  records  of  the  church  extend,  we  find  that  collection 
everywhere  in  use  :  not  only  in  every  quarter  of  the  world/  but 
also  in  every  division  of  the  church,  whether  orthodox  or  schis- 

*  [Evangeliensammlung  is  the  word  in  the  original,  which  expresses  a  collection  of 
the  Gospels  into  one  volume,  forming  a  subdivision  of  the  whole  New  Testament.] — Tr. 

f  The  word  fiiaOrJKij  occurs,  however,  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  iii.  25;  Gal.  iii. 
15 ;  Heb.  ix.  16),  also  in  the  sense  of  "  Testament,"  "  leaving  an  inheritance  to  children." 


136  INTRODUCTION. 

matic,  and  even  among  heathen  writers,  as  Celsus,  it  was  known, 
used,  and  respected.*  It  is  true,  that  many  heretics,  as  Marcion, 
the  Jewish  Christians,  and  others,  did  not  use  the  Gospel-collec- 
tion, but  only  one  or  other  of  the  Gospels  ;  the  collection,  however, 
was  known  to  them,  and  they  refrained  from  its  use  on  the 
sole  ground  that,  in  accordance  with  their  views,  they  did  not 
helieve  themselves  justified  in  regarding  the  writers  as  authorities 
in  matters  of  faith."}*  This  leads  necessarily  to  the  supposition  of  a 
very  early  origin  of  the  Gospel-collection,  of  which,  however,  we 
have  no  definite  information.  Whether  it  was  the  work  of  an  indi- 
vidual, or  of  a  single  church,  or  of  a  council,  remains  uncertain. 
The  last  supposition  is  the  most  unlikely,  since  we  have  no  account 
whatever  of  church  assemblies  before  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. But  it  is  very  possible  that  some  eminent  man,  or  an  influ- 
ential church,  might  have  formed  the  collection.  Yet  there  is  no 
historical  trace  of  such  a  fact  extant ;  and  the  universal  dissemina- 
tion of  the  collection,  appearing,  as  it  does,  even  in  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century,  seems  to  point  to  another -mode  of  forma- 
tion. For,  starting  with  the  assumption,  that  the  four  Gospels  are 
genuine,  and  with  the  further  assumption  (which  we  must  do,  since 
there  is  no  credible  account  whatever  of  other  apostolical  Gospels), 
that  these  four  alone  are  the  work  of  apostles,  or  enjoy  apostolical 
sanction,  we  .do  not  then  need  to  suppose  a  definite  time,  or  a  de- 
finite place,  or  any  special  occasion,  in  order  to  explain  the  origin  of 
the  collection  of  the  Gospels  ;  but  we  may  conceive  that  it  was 
made  in  different  places  at  the  same  time.  The  lively  intercourse 
among  the  ancient  Christian  congregations  led  them  to  distribute, 
as  quickly  as  possible,  those  Gospel  histories  which  had  apostolical 
authority  in  their  favour,  as  precious  gifts  bequeathed  to  the 
church  of  Christ ;  and,  as  only  these  four  could  shew  credible 
evidence  of  being  genuine  apostolical  writings,  they  were  conse- 
quently united  into  one  collection.  Gradually,  as  they  came  into 
circulation  in  the  church,  they  were  deposited  in  the  church  archives, 
which  must  have  been  early  formed  by  the  presbyters  and  bishops, 
and  were  immediately  multiplied  by  copying.  If,  then,  we  suppose 
likewise  (and  history  supplies  no  ground  of  objection  to  the  sup- 
position), that  the  evangelists  wrote  in  the  order  in  which  the  Gos- 
pels are  arranged  in  the  canon,  not  only  is  their  general  dissemina- 
tion accounted  for,  but  also  the  circumstance,  that  we  discover  only 
slight  traces  of  the  existence  of  any  arrangement  different  from  the 

*  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  point,  see  the  Author's  work :  Die  Aechtheit  der 
Evangelien,  aus  der  Geschichte  der  zwei  ersten  Jahrhunderte  erwiesen.  Konigsberg, 
1823,  8vo,  S.  261,  ff. 

f  E.  g.y  Marcion,  the  Gnostic,  believed  St.  Matthew,  and  even  St.  John,  to  be  Judai- 
zere.  (See  the  Author's  work,  ut  supra,  S.  359,  ff.) 


INTRODUCTION.  137 

present* — a  circumstance  which,  apart  from  the  above  supposition 
might  favour  the  opinion,  that  the  collection  had  been  arranged 
in  this  order  by  some  particular  individual  or  church  ;  since,  other- 
wise, its  contemporaneous  formation  in  different  places,  would 
almost  inevitably  have  produced  variations  in  the  arrangement,  es- 
pecially variations  so  natural  as  the  placing  of  John  and  Mat- 
thew together. 


§  2.  ON  THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  GOSPEL-COLLECTION. 

The  ancient  church  justly  regarded  the  Gospel-collection  as  a 
unity,  on  which  account  they  call  it  simply  evayy&iov  [glad  tidings], 
or  evayyeXiKovJi  as  containing,  in  its  portraiture  of  the  life,  labors, 
and  passion  of  Jesus,  the  glad  tidings  of  Him  who  had  appeared 
as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  See  Iren.  adv.  haer.  i.  17,  29,  iii.  11. 
The  uniting  into  a  whole  of  these  four  authentic  records  of  the 
Saviour's  life,  they  regarded  as  not  merely  accidental.  They  recog- 
nised in  their  connexion,  as  in  the  general  formation  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  Scriptures,  a  higher  necessity.  The  number  of  the 
Gospels  could  have  been  no  more  changed  than  their  position 
without  disturbing  the  harmony  of  the  whole.  Irenceus  (ut  sup. 
iii.  11,  p.  221,  Ed.  Grabe),  therefore,  very  appropriately  calls  the 
Gospel-collection  a  evayyekiov  TErpdiJ.opQov,  four-formed  gospel,  and 
describes  it  as  a  picture,  portraying  the  same  sublime  object 
from  different  aspects.  The  relation  of  the  Gospels  to  each  other, 
and  to  the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Testament,  proves  the 
correctness  of  this  opinion.  The  Gospels  supplement  each  other 
alike  in  their  accounts  of  the  Kedeemer's  life,  and  their  mode  of 
portraiture.  The  life  of  Jesus  presented  itself  in  so  manifold  a 
variety  of  aspects  ;  his  discourses  poured  upon  his  disciples  so  rich 
a  stream  of  life,  that  any  single  individual  was  utterly  incapable 
of  apprehending  the  overwhelming  fulness  of  his  character.  In 
him  were  disclosed  elements  which  no  single  set  of  human  faculties 

*  Cod.  D.  and  also  the  Gothic  translation,  place,  for  instance,  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
immediately  after  that  of  St.  Matthew,  evidently  in  order  to  separate  the  two  apostolical 
works  from  those  of  the  helpers  of  the  apostles.  See  Hug.  Introduction  to  the  New  Test- 
ament, p.  309  (Fosdick's  Translation),  and  the  Postscripts  to  the  Gospels  in  Schulz'  edi- 
tion. 

f  The  New  Testament  recognizes  the  proper  signification  only  of  the  word  evayyeXiov 
=•  5"H 'B2  chiefly  in  the  special  reference  to  the  joyful  tidings  of  the  Messiah's  actual  ap- 
pearance. A  secondary  signification,  in  conformity  to  which  the  writings  that  sketch  the 
notions  of  the  Messiah  are  called  eiiayye'Aia,  has  been  incorrectly  given  to  the  word  in 
such  passages  as  Rom.  ii.  16;  x.  16.  The  titles  of  our  Gospels  are  of  later  origin;  more- 
over, in  them  we  should  refer  the  term  e vayy&iov  simply  to  the  contents,  not  to  the  book. 
In  classical  use,  evayye/.iov  signifies  likewise  a  reward  for  a  piece  of  good  news,  a  pre- 
sent to  one  who  brings  good  news.  (See  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lex.  s.  v.) 


138  INTRODUCTION. 

was  adequate  to  grasp  ;  hence  there  were  needed  several  minds, 
which,  as  mirrors,  caught  the  rays  that  proceeded  from  him,  as  from 
the  Sun  of  the  spiritual  world,  and  reflected  the  same  image  in 
different  directions.  These  varied  conceptions  of  our  Lord  in  his 
union  of  divine  and  human  attributes,  are  contained  in  the  Gospels, 
and  must  be  blended  together,  to  form  a  perfect  delineation  of  Christ. 
But  for  God's  providential  arrangement,  therefore,  by  which  several 
persons,  and  those  very  different,  narrated  the  life  of  Jesus,  either 
his  human  and  natural,  or  his  divine  and  supernatural,  conduct 
would  be  presented  to  us  less  carefully  conceived,  according  as 
we  were  without  the  one  or  the  other  aspect  of  this  grand  fourfold 
picture. 

But  much  as  this  view  of  the  relation  of  the  Gospels  to  each 
other  must  approve  itself  to  every  one  who  feels  that  he  cannot  as- 
cribe the  development  of  the  church,  and  especially  the  formation 
of  the  Scriptures,  to  chance,  it  is  yet  difficult,  in  following  out  that 
view,  to  define  accurately  the  character  of  each  individual  Gospel — 
a  difficulty  which  certainly  by  no  means  leads  to  the  rejection  of  the 
fundamental  view,  but  rather  invites  to  deeper  research  into  the 
nature  of  the  Gospels.  That  Matthew  has  rather  seized  the  human, 
and  John  the  divine  element  in  the  character  of  Jesus  is  too  evident 
to  be  overlooked.  In  Matthew,  we  see  the  human  element  exalted 
to  the  divine  ;  in  John,  the  descent  of  the  divine  to  the  human. 
It  is  more  difficult  to  assign  a  definite  position  to  Mark  and  Luke, 
since  both  stand  as  intermediate  between  the  other  two  Gospels,  as 
the  extremes.  The  comparison  of  the  Gospels  with  the  prevalent 
tendencies  in  the  ancient  church,  is  our  best  guide.  That  is  to  say, 
as  Matthew  unquestionably  represents  the  Judaistic,  and  St.  John 
the  Gnostic,  or  speculative  and  mystical  element,  so  far  as  both  are 
to  some  extent  true,  so  Mark  and  Luke  appear  to  represent  the 
peculiar  tendencies  of  the  heathen  Christians,  the  former  perhaps 
more  in  the  Roman,  the  latter  more  in  the  Greek,  form.  In  Mark, 
however,  the  least  of  what  is  peculiar  is  discernible ;  yet,  that  it  is  not 
altogether  wanting,  is  evident  from  the  circumstance,  that  one  party 
in  the  early  church  attached  themselves  specially  to  this  Gospel.  (On 
the  party  itself,  however,  rests  an  impenetrable  obscurity.  See  the 
Author's  Geschichte  der  Aechtheit  der  Evang.  S.  96,  if).  As,  then, 
the  Gospels,  in  the  manner  referred  to,  represent  different  tenden- 
cies of  the  early  church,  which,  under  other  names  and  forms,  belong 
to  every  period  ;  so  they  correspond  to  the  progressive  developments 
of  the  inner  life,  which  can  never  proceed  in  its  growth  from  the  un- 
derstanding of  John  downwards  to  Matthew,  but,  always  upwards, 
from  Matthew  to  John. 

Further,  if  we  consider  the  Gospel-collection  in  its  relation  to 
the  entire  New  Testament,  it  appears  plainly  as  the  basis  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  139 

whole.  In  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Gospel  is  unfolded  in  its  separ- 
ate branches — in  its  doctrinal  and  practical  bearing ;  the  general 
epistles  continue  the  development  of  what  is  contained  in  its  germ 
in  the  Gospels,  and  finally  in  vital  union  with  them  as  the  root  and 
branches,  the  fulness  of  New  Testament  life  blossoms  forth  in  the 
prophetic  strains  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  whole  New  Testament, 
therefore,  like  a  living  plant,  has  a  complete  and  organic  unity.  The 
beginning  and  the  end  are  the  most  difficult  to  understand,  because 
there  the  thoughts  appear  in  the  most  succinct  form.  Unless  in- 
ward experience  be  altogether  wanting,  it  is  best  to  begin  the  deeper 
study  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  since 
that  document  purposely  expounds  at  length  the  peculiar  features  of 
the  Gospel.  After  an  accurate  investigation  of  this  important  epis- 
tle, much  that  is  expressed  more  concisely  and  darkly  in  other  por- 
tions of  the  New  Testament,  may  be  easily  understood.  But, 
as  the  whole  New  Testament  is  the  subject  of  our  labours,  we  fol- 
low the  order  of  the  books  as  there  given,  so  as  not  to  interfere 
with  the  wishes  and  views  of  any. 


§  3.  ON  THE  AFFINITY  OF  THE  FIEST  THREE  GOSPELS. 

The  investigation  of  the  difficult  problem  of  the  striking  affinity 
of  the  first  three  Gospels,  which  appears  interrupted  by  variations 
just  as  striking,  cannot,  of  course,  be  carried  out  in  this  place, 
any  more  than  a  history  of  the  attempts  to  solve  that  problem  : 
both  belong  to  the  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the 
New  Testament,  properly  so  called,  where  the  subjects  of  the  pre- 
ceding paragraphs  also  meet  with  a  more  copious  discussion.  A 
commentator,  however,  owes  to  his  readers  an  account  of  the  way 
in  which  he  looks  upon  this  remarkable  phenomenon,  since  the  view 
taken  of  very  many  passages  is  determined  by  his  opinion  concern- 
ing the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  I  shall  therefore  endeavour  here  to 
give  briefly  the  results  of  my  inquiries. 

The  two  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  appear  to  me  to  have 
been  composed  quite  independently  —  Matthew's  principally  from  his 
own  experience  and  oral  tradition  ;  Luke's  principally  from  shorter 
written  memoirs  (diegeses)*  which  he  edited.  That  which  is  found 
common  to  both  Gospels  may,  in  great  part,  be  accounted  for  on 
the  supposition  of  an  affinity  in  the  sources  of  information,f 
both  oral  and  written,  which  the  authors  used  independently 


f,  Luke  i.  1.]  —  Tr. 

\  The  copious  narrative  of  the  journey,  contained  in  Luke  ix.  51  —  xviii.  14,  which 
is  peculiar  to  him,  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  a  dieyesis  of  that  sort,  edited  by  St.  Luke. 
See  on  this  subject,  Sckleiermacher,  iiber  die  Schiften  des  Lucas,  S.  158,  ffi 


140  INTRODUCTION. 

of  each  other.  In  another  respect,  however,  the  supposition  of 
their  having  used  kindred  sources  of  information,  does  not  ap- 
pear sufficient  to  account  for  the  affinity  subsisting  between 
them.  I  do  not  indeed,  by  any  means,  discover  a  uniformity  in  the 
general  structure  of  the  two  works,  and  especially  not  in  the  alleged 
fact,  that  the  scene  of  Christ's  history,  up  to  his  last  journey,  is 
confined  to  Galilee  ;  for  in  the  general  plan  there  are  wide  differ- 
ences, and  the  above-mentioned  limitation  of  our  Saviour's  min- 
istry to  Galilee,  in  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  is  totally 
destitute  of  proof,  as  it  depends  not  on  positive  reasons,  but  merely 
on  the  omission  of  journeys  to  the  feasts,  and  the  want  of  chrono- 
logical and  topographical  notices.  Still,  there  is,  in  many  places,  so 
close  a  verbal  coincidence  between  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  we  can 
hardly  maintain  that  both,  in  such  places  also,  wrote  altogether 
independently  of  each  other,  or  only  used  kindred  sources  of  infor- 
mation. Compare  Matth.  iii.  7-10,  with  Luke  iii.  7-9  ;  Matth.  vii. 
3-5,  with  Luke  vi.  41,  42  ;  Matth.  vii.  7-11,  with  Luke  xi.  9-13  ; 
Matth.  viii.  9,  with  Luke  vii.  8  ;  Matth.  viii.  19-22,  with  Luke 
ix.  57-60  ;  Matth.  ix.  5,  6,  with  Luke  v.  23,  24  ;  Matth.  ix.  37,  38, 
with  Luke  x.  2  ;  Matth.  xi.  4-11,  with  Luke  vii.  23-28  ;  Matth.  xii. 
41-45,  with  Luke  xi.  24-26,  31,  32.  Yet  the  view,  that  the  one 
made  use  of  the  complete  work  of  the  other,  is  beset  with  invincible 
difficulties,  since,  in  that  case,  it  remains  inexplicable  for  what 
reason  the  one  should  not  have  either  used  or  noticed  the  other's 
account  of  the  Saviour's  infancy.  To  solve  this  difficulty,  I  suppose 
that  Matthew,  who  had  written  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  himself  sub- 
sequently prepared*  a  Greek  recension  (no  other  than  our  canonical 
Matthew)  ;  and  that  for  this  work,  he  made  use  of  smaller  collec- 
tions of  those  memoirs  which  Luke  had  used,  particularly  Luke  iii 
— ix.,  in  which  section  the  closest  coincidence  is  found. 

The  affinity  of  Mark's  Gospel  with  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
must  be  differently  explained.f  Although  he  may  have  taken  here 
and  there  a  circumstance  from  tradition,  or  from  shorter  memoirs, 
yet,  in  the  main  (for  there  is  very  little  in  Mark  that  is  peculiar  to 
him  ;  with  the  exception  of  additional  circumstances  in  various  nar- 
ratives, two  cures,  briefly  narrated,  are  all  that  he  alone  has),  he 
follows  Matthew  and  Luke  entirely ;  where  he  leaves  the  one,  he 
follows  the  other,  but  only  to  return  from  the  latter  to  the  former. 
It  is  impossible  for  so  regular  a  coincidence  to  be  accidental.  Still 
I  do  not  go  so  far  as  to  maintain,  that  Mark  had  both  the  Gospels 
before  him  while  composing.  With  respect  to  Matthew,  this  is 
not  perhaps  improbable  ;  but,  with  respect  to  Luke,  it  would  suit 

*  This  subject  is  handled  more  fully  in  §  4  of  this  Introduction, 
f  See  Saunter,  Ueber  die  Quellen  des  Marcus.     Berlin,  1825.    A.  Knobel  de  origine 
evang.  Marci.  "Wratislaviae,  1831. 


INTRODUCTION.  141 

better  to  suppose  that  Mark  also  was  acquainted  only  with  the  sec- 
tion, chaps,  iii.- — ix.,  where  the  closest  agreement  is  found  ;  so  that 
Mark  may  still  have  been  finished  earlier,  and,  consequently,  re- 
ceived into  the  canon  earlier,  than  the  complete  Gospel  of  Luke. 
For,  had  Mark  had  access  to  the  whole  Gospel  of  Luke,  it  would 
be  inexplicable  why  he  should  not  have  incorporated  much  of 
the  important  narrative  of  the  journey  in  Luke  ix. — xviii.*  Ke- 
specting  the  early  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  contain 
the  history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus,  it  might  be  said  that  Mark 
refrained  from  using  them  on  the  ground,  that  it  was  his  purpose  to 
describe  only  the  official  labours  of  Jesus. 


§  4.  ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  MATTHEW. 

Matthew,  called  Levi,  the  son  of  Alphasus  (Matth.  ix.  9  ;  Mark 
ii.  14),  is  mentioned  in  the  inscription  as  the  authorf  of  the  first  of 
our  four  canonical  Gospels  ;  and  tradition  establishes  the  fact,  that 
Matthew  wrote  a  Gospel  ;  but  the  question  about  the  genuineness 
of  Matthew  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  inquhy  into  the 
language  in  which  it  was  composed,  that  the  one  cannot,  by  possi- 
bility, be  answered  apart  from  the  other.  All  accounts  of  the  Fa- 
thers who  give  any  information  about  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
(see  the  Author's  Geschichte  der  Ev.,  S.  19  ff.),  agree  in  this, 
that  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  the  Syro-Chaldaic  language. 
But  on  the  relation  in  which  our  Greek  Gospel  by  Matthew 
stands  to  the  Aramaic,  there  rests  an  obscurity  which  previous 
investigations  have  not  succeeded  in  penetrating.  The  readi- 
est suggestion  is,  to  pronounce  the  Greek  Gospel  a  translation 
of  the  Aramaic.  On  closer  consideration,  however,  difficulties  arise 
in  the  way  of  this  view.  First  of  all  —  Papias  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iii. 
39)  might  seem  to  speak  against  the  existence  of  a  translation,  as 
he  writes  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew,  rjwijvevoe  6'  avrd,  <t>? 


*  See,  however,  what  is  said  concerning  this  in  the  remarks  on  Luke  ix.  61. 

f  Although  we  are  not,  by  any  means,  necessarily  compelled  to  explain  the  inscrip- 
tions of  the  Gospels,  as  giving  the  author,  yet  they  may  be  so  taken  grammatically  ;  it  is 
the  comparison  of  tradition  that  gives  to  this  possible  explanation  its  probability.  The 
Karti  might  be  taken  =  secundum  ;  so  that  the  meaning  of  the  formula  would  be  —  a  Gospel 
of  Jesus,  after  St.  Matthew's  mode  of  description,  or  St.  Mark's,  which  explanation  would 
admit  the  supposition  of  other  authors  of  the  Gospels.  But  universally-prevailing  tradition, 
which  cannot  have  arisen  out  of  these  superscriptions,  because  it  is  too  widespread  and 
too  ancient,  decides  in  favour  of  taking  /card  as  pointing  out  the  author  —  a  usage  found 
also  2  Mace.  ii.  13.  This  form  of  expression  was  chosen  to  convey  the  genitive  relation, 
because  the  simple  genitive  could  hardly  stand  here,  since  the  Gospel  is  not  that  of  the 
author,  but  of  Jesus  Christ.  As  EvayyeTiiov  'Irjaov  Xpiarov,  Gospel  of  Christ,  was  in  use, 
it  was  impossible  to  write  Evayy&iov  MarOaiov  or  MupKou,  Gospel  of  Matthew,  or  Mark. 


142  INTRODUCTION. 


rfv  dvvarbg  tKaarof,  which  each  interpreted  as  he  was  able  ;  which 
words  are  best  taken  to  mean,  that  every  one  had  to  try  to  explain 
the  Hebrew  book  as  well  as  he  could  (either  from  his  own  knowl- 
edge, or  from  that  of  some  one  else),  because  there  was  no  transla- 
tion of  it.  However,  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact,  that  Papias 
says  this,  not  of  his  own  times,  but  of  a  time  already  past.*  The 
passage  cannot,  accordingly,  be  adduced  to  show,  that  in  the  time 
of  Papias,  there  was  no  Greek  translation  of  Matthew  in  existence. 
Next,  our  Greek  text  of  Matthew  shews  traces  of  originality,  which 
render  it  extremely  unlikely  that  we  have  hi  it  a  mere  translation. 
In  particular,  the  passages  from  the  Old  Testament  are  quoted  in  a 
way  so  free  and  independent,  that  no  translator  would  have  so 
treated  them.f  This  character  of  the  Greek  text,  taken  in  connex- 
ion with  the  universally  current  tradition,  that  Matthew  wrote  an 
Aramaic  Gospel,  and  with  the  like  universal  reception  of  this  very 
Greek  text  in  the  church,  as  the  genuine  Gospel,  renders  it  probable 
to  me,  as  before  observed,  that  Matthew,  after  the  composition  of 
the  Aramaic  Gospel,  himself  prepared  also  a  Greek  edition  of  it,  or, 
at  least,  had  it  done  under  his  authority.  This  Greek  edition  may 
be  regarded  as  another  recension  of  the  Gospel,  whereby  the  differ- 
ence that  subsists  between  our  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  and 
that  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  which  was  a  revision  founded  more 
on  the  Aramaic  Gospel,  is  more  easily  accounted  for.  With  the 
growing  circulation  of  the  Greek,  the  traces  of  the  Aramaic  Gospel 
were  gradually  lost,  because  to  most  it  was  inaccessible,  by  rea- 
son of  the  language,  and  its  contents  could  be  read  as  well  in  the 
Greek  Gospel. 

The  view,  just  detailed,  of  the  relation  of  the  Greek  Gospel  to 
the  Aramaic,  agrees  best  with  the  historical  data.  But,  very  re- 
cently, an  attempt  has  been  made  to  disprove  the  apostolical  charac- 
ter of  our  Greek  Gospel,  on  internal  grounds.  J  But,  from  the  na- 

*  Sieffert  (on  the  origin  of  the  first  canonical  Gospel,  p.  14,  ff.)  makes  it  probable 
that  these  are  not  the  words  of  Papias,  but  of  the  elder  presbyter  John.  According  to 
this,  even  so  early  as  John,  must  the  time  when  each  *vas  obliged  to  translate  for  him- 
self Matthew's  Aramaic  Gospel  have  been  already  past.  —  [E. 

f  True,  this  free  mode  of  treatment  may  have  sprung  from  the  Aramaic  original, 
since  in  this,  of  course,  the  citations  from  the  0.  T.  must  have  been  translated  from  He- 
brew into  Aramaic.  —  [E. 

£  Schlciermacher,  Schulz,  de  "Wette,  Schulthess,  were  the  first  to  utter  these  doubts. 
Heidenreich  has  endeavoured  to  refute  them  in  Winer's  Theol.  Journ.,  Bd.  III.,  H.  2. 
They  were  followed  by  Sieffert  (Konigsberg,  1832).  Klener  (Gottingen,  1832). 
Schneckenburger  (Stuttgart,  1834).  Consult  Schleiermacher's  Article  on  the  Testimony 
of  Papias  (Stud,  und  Kritiken  Jahrg.  1832,  H.  4);  and  Strauss's  Review  in  the  BerL 
Jahrbiicher,  1834,  No.  91,  ff.  Kern,  Tubingen,  1834,  defends  the  genuineness  of  Matthew 
against  these  attacks,  still  inclining  to  Sieffert's  and  Klener's  views  ;  he  also  supposes  a 
re-touching  of  the  original,  together  with  spurious  additions,  only  allowing  but  few  such. 
I  have  given  my  opinion  of  these  works  and  their  arguments  more  at  length  in  the  Er- 


INTRODUCTION.  143 

ture  of  the  case,  such  arguments  have  a  very  uncertain  charac- 
ter ;  much,  if  not  every  thing,  depends  on  the  feeling,  and  es- 
pecially on  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  critic.  Hence  the  opinions 
of  the  learned  differ  greatly  from  each  other ;  where  one  sees  a 
proof  against  the  apostolical  authorship  of  Matthew,  another  sees  a 
testimony  in  its  favour.  We  cannot,  therefore,  ascribe  any  import- 
ance to  the  results  of  internal  criticism,  as  long  as  they  are  unsup- 
ported by  historical  proofs.  (For  further  information  on  this  sub- 
ject consult  the  Programmes  mentioned  in  the  note.) 

Lastly,  in  reference  to  the  place  and  time  of  the  composition  of 
the  Gospel  by  Matthew,  but  little  can  be  said.  Doubtless  it  was 
written  in  Palestine,  and  even  in  Jerusalem  itself,  since  the  tradi- 
tion of  Matthew's  labours  points  thither.  The  circumstance,  that 
the  Hebrew  recension  of  the  Gospel,  under  the  title  of  evayyiXiov 
nad'  'E/3pa«wf  [Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews],  was  in  use  prin- 
cipally among  the  Jewish  Christians  in  Palestine,  also  implies  that 
it  was  composed  in  that  country,  and  for  its  inhabitants.  The 
Greek  recension  may  certainly  have  had  its  origin  in  another 
country ;  yet  there  are  no  data  to  enable  us  to  decide  accurately 
upon  the  point,  and  it  is  just  as  possible  that  Matthew,  in 
consequence  of  the  very  general  use  of  the  Greek  tongue  in  Pales- 
tine, in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  may  have  prepared  a  Greek  edition 
of  his  Gospel  for  the  benefit  of  the  Hellenistic  Jews  who  (Jwelt 
there.  The  supposition  of  the  Greek  Gospel  originating  in  any 
other  country  is  liable  to  this  objection,  that  there  are  no  re- 
marks added  illustrative  of  the  localities  and  customs  of  Palestine, 
such  as  we  find  in  Mark  and  Luke,  and  which,  in  that  case,  would 
have  been  equally  necessary  in  Matthew.  Respecting  the  time  of 
the  composition  we  are  totally  destitute  of  express  authority.  The 
statement  of  Irenceus  (adv.  hasr.  iii.  1),  however,  that  it  was  written 
while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Rome,  comes,  probably, 
very  near  the  truth.  According  to  Matth.  xxiv.,  the  Gospel  was  cer- 
tainly written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  since  this  event, 
though  near  at  hand,  appears  as  still  future.  We  can  hardly,  there- 
fore, be  wrong  in  placing  the  composition  of  Matthew  somewhere 
between  A.  D.  60-70, 

And,  in  conclusion,  to  say  something  on  the  distinctive  charac- 
ter of  Matthew,  it  is  clearly  seen,  as  was  before  observed,  to  be  this, 
that  Matthew  labours  to  prove  for  Jewish  readers  that  Jesus  is  the 
Messiah  foretold  by  the  prophets.  The  special  regard  for  Jewish 
readers  shows  itself  at  the  very  commencement,  in  that  the  gene- 
alogy of  Jesus  is  traced  up  to  Abraham  only ;  it  appears  also  in 

langen  Easter  Programme  for  the  year  1835,  and  the  Christmas  Programme  for  1836. 
On  Sieffert's  Work  see  the  Author's  Review  in  Tholuck's  Liter.  Anz.  Jahrg.  1833.  No. 
14,  ff. 


144  INTRODUCTION. 


various  express  explanations  (Matth.  x.  6  ;  xv.  24)  ;  and  lastly,  in 
assuming  the  reader's  familiarity  with  every  thing  relating  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  Jewish  customs  and'  localities.  The  distinctive  charac- 
ter of  Matthew  is  further  evident  in  this,  that  he  regards  the  out- 
ward features  of  the  picture  as  entirely  unessential  and  subordinate. 
He  has  conceived  the  life  of  Jesus  from  general  points  of  view. 
At  one  time  he  pictures  him  as  a  new  lawgiver  ;  at  another,  as  a 
worker  of  miracles  ;  at  another,  as  a  teacher.  The  character  of  the 
Saviour  he  brings  out  specially  by  speeches,  made  up  in  part,  ap- 
parently, of  the  elements  of  discourses  delivered  at  different  times.* 
These  discourses,  as  chap.  v.  —  vii.,  x.,  xxi.,  xiii.,  xviii.,  xxiii.,  xxiv.,  xxv., 
are  connected  by  historical  introductions,  which  to  the  Evangelist  how- 
ever seemed  (much  as  in  the  case  of  John)  in  themselves  of  no  sig- 
nificance, whence  also  he  has  elaborated  them  with  much  less  care 
than  the  discourses.  His  work,  regarded  as  a  whole,  exhibits  its 
author  unmistakably  as  absorbed  by  the  majesty  of  the  Saviour's 
character  ;  still  he  lacks  the  abundant  susceptibility  and  refinement 
of  spirit  which  we  admire  in  John,  while  again  he  surpasses  Mark 
in  depth  and  spirituality.  The  Christ  of  Matthew  is  indeed  not  the 
Christ  of  the  popular  Jewish  conceptions.  Bather,  he  appears  in  di- 
rect conflict  with  what  was  false  in  the  Jewish  notion  of  the  Messiah. 
Still  the  Son  of  God  (whom  Matthew,  of  course,  in  common  with 
the  other  apostles,  recognised  in  Jesus),  presents  himself,  accord- 
ing to  his  portraiture,  in  a  Jewish  garb  ;  f  while  in  John's,  a 
robe  of  heavenly  light  floats  around  him  ;  so  that  the  form  in  which 
the  disciple  of  love  introduces  the  Son  of  love,  bears  a  spiritual  glory 
corresponding  to  that  of  the  Sacred  Being  whom  it  invests.  As  this 
cannot  be  said  of  Matthew,  the  ancients  were  not  wrong  in  denom- 
inating the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  oco^ariKov,  bodily,  that  of  John, 
TTvevpaTiKov,  spiritual;  by  which  epithet  it  was  not  intended  to 
mark  that  of  Matthew  as  unapostolic  ;  but  as  in  the  Saviour  the 
Word  was  manifested  in  a  awjua,  body,  so,  in  a  comprehen- 


*  Schlichlhorst,  Uebe,r  das  Verhaltniss  der  drei  synoptisckeu  Evangelien,  und  iiber  den 
Charakter  des  Mt.  insbesondere,  Gottingen,  1835,  attempts  to  substantiate  too  close  a  re- 
lationship between  the  separate  parts  of  Matthew  to  each  other.  Various  of  his  demon- 
strations are  not  without  foundation  ;  but  most  of  these  references  are  undesigned,  simply 
growing  out  of  the  spirit  and  harmony  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  not  out  of  the  reflection  of 
the  author. 

•f-  Matthew  has  committed  to  writing  what  constituted  the  substance  of  the  oral 
preaching  of  the  apostles  to  the  Israelites  ;  the  proof  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the 
promised  (Gen.  xv.)  seed  of  Abraham,  and  the  promised  (2  Samuel,  vii.)  seed  of  David,  in  a 
word,  the  Messiah.  This  must  be  satisfactorily  shown  to  the  Israelites  before  pro- 
ceeding to  the  eternal  deity  of  Christ.  First  his  historical  relation  to  prophecy  ;  then  his 
essential  relation  to  God,  the  universe,  and  the  history  of  the  world.  Matthew  in  cha- 
racter and  office  belonged  to  the  former  of  these  periods.  Hence  we  explain  the  promin- 
ence given  by  him  to  the  human  and  Israelitish  aspects  of  the  Saviour's  character. 
-[E. 


INTRODUCTION.  145 

sive  delineation  of  his  life,  along  with  the  spiritual,  the  national 
and  temporal  elements  of  his  character  required  to  be  livingly  set  • 
forth. 

§  5.  ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARK. 

JOHN  MARK,  often  called  simply  Mark,  was  the  son  of  a  certain 
Mary  (Acts  xii.  12),  who  had  a  house  at  Jerusalem,  where  the 
apostles  often  assembled.  He  is  known  from  the  New  Testament  as 
the  companion  of  Paul.  (Acts  xii.  25  ;  xiii.  5  ;  xv.  36,  ff.)  Even 
during  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Home,  he  is  still  associated  with 
him  (Col.  iv.  10  ;  Philem.  24)  ;  and  whether  we  assume  a  second 
imprisonment  of  Paul  at  Home  or  not,  he,  in  any  case,  appears  in 
connection  with  Paul  till  the  close  of  the  apostle's  life.  (2  Tim.  iv. 
11.)  In  this  there  seems  to  be  some  contradiction  to  the  notices  of 
the  fathers,  according  to  which  Mark  appears  in  company  with 
Peter,  of  which  only  one  trace  is  met  with  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  that  has  some  uncertainty  attaching  to  it.  (1  Peter  v.  13.) 
But  the  notices  of  the  fathers  may  be  reconciled  with  the  statements 
of  the  New  Testament,  by  supposing  that  after  the  contention  be- 
tween Paul,  Barnabas,  and  Mark  (Acts  xv.  37,  ff.),  the  last-named 
joined  Peter/or  a  time.  On  this  point  the  New  Testament  is  silent, 
because  less  is  there  said  about  Peter  than  about  Paul ;  but  after- 
wards, when  the  old  relation  between  Mark  and  Paul  was  restored, 
and  Peter,  moreover,  was  labouring  in  conjunction  with  Paul  at 
Home,  Mark  also  appears  again  in  connexion  with  Paul.  But,  to- 
gether with  the  account  of  the  connexion  of  Mark  and  Peter,  an  ac- 
count too  unvarying  to  be  justly  liable  to  question,  the  fathers  tell  us 
(see  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  39  ;  v.  8  ;  vi.  25.  Tertutt.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  5)  that 
Peter  gave  his  sanction  to  the  Gospel  which  Mark,  as  his  interpreter, 
had  written.  That  the  fathers  are  not  quite  unanimous  in  their  re- 
lation of  subordinate  circumstances,  can  be  no  reason  for  doubting 
the  trutlTof  the  main  fact ;  because  nothing  else  can  render  intelli- 
gible the  fact,  otherwise  so  astonishing,  that  the  Gospel  by  Mark 
was  acknowledged  in  the  church  without  any  contradiction.  The 
authority  of  this  companion  of  the  apostles  was  surely  too  inconsider- 
able, and  his  previous  relation  to  our  Lord  too  uncertain,  for  them 
to  have  relied  on  his  personal  character  in  receiving  his  narrative  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  into  the  canon.  Had  it  been  the  product  of  a  later 
period,  some  more  celebrated  name  would  certainly  have  been  put  at 
the  head  of  the  book  ;  so  that,  even  if  history  did  not  supply  any 
such  account,  we  must  have  conjectured  something  of  the  kind  from 
the  fact  of  the  reception  of  Mark  into  the  canon.  The  authority  of 
Peter,  which  this  Gospel  enjoyed,  also  alone  explains  how  any  per- 
sons in  the  ancient  church  could  have  thought  of  using  this  Gospel 

VOL.  L— 10 


146  INTRODUCTION. 

in  preference  to  any  other,  as  Irenceus  (iii.  11,  17)  tells  us  was  the 
case.  The  character  of  the  Gospel  itself  could  not  possibly  lead 
to  this,  since  it  contains  too  little  that  is  distinctive  to  gain 
a  party  to  itself ;  but  it  is  easily  conceivable,  that  partisans  of  Peter, 
on  account  of  this  very  connexion,  which,  as  they  knew,  subsisted 
between  Mark  and  their  leader,  used  this  Gospel  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple that  the  partisans  of  Paul  used  that  of  Luke.  But  whether 
the  Gospel  by  Mark  suffered  corruption  in  the  hands  of  tjiese 
Christians  of  Peter's  party,  as  that  of  Luke  did  among  the  ultras 
of  Paul's  (the  Marcionites),  and  that  of  Matthew  among  the 
Jewish  Christians,  is  uncertain.  We  know  too  little  of  the  evay- 
yskiov  tear'  Alyvrrriov^  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians,  to  be 
able  to  say  any  thing  certain  of  its  relationship  to  the  Gospel  of 
Peter.* 

The  time  and  place  of  the  composition,  can  be  determined  with 
no  more  exactness  than  in  the  case  of  Matthew's  Gospel.  Here, 
also,  we  must  rest  content  with  one  circumstance,  that  it  was  writ- 
ten before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  (Mark  xiii.  14,  ff.)  From 
the  relation  it  bears  to  Matthew,  we  may  conclude,  with  much  pro- 
bability, that  it  was  composed  later  than  the  Gospel  of  that  apostle. 
We  come  nearest  the  truth  in  supposing  that  Mark  wrote  his 
Gospel  in  the  period  shortly  before  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem 
[according  to  tradition  shortly  after  the  death  of  Peter,  in  the  sum- 
mer of  64].  Respecting  the  place  of  its  composition,  tradition  is 
divided  between  Alexandria  and  Rome.  The  Latin  words  which 
Mark  has  admitted  into  his  book,  favour  the  latter  city ;  and 
as,  in  any  case,  it  had  its  origin  in  one  of  the  centres  of  the 
early  ecclesiastical  life,f  to  which  circumstance  its  rapid  circulation 
must  be  partially  ascribed  ;  and  as  nothing  in  the  history  of  Mark  is 
opposed  to  the  idea  that  he  wrote  in  Rome,  the  opinion  that  he  did 
so  seems  to  deserve  the  preference. 

No  definite  character  is  displayed  in  the  Gospel  by  Mark.  We 
see,  indeed,  at  once  that  he  did  not  write  for  Jewish  readers,  because 
Jewish  manners  and  customs  are  carefully  explained  by  him  (com- 
pare the  remarks  on  Mark  vii.  3,  4) ;  but  what  particular  tendency 

*  In  my  History  of  the  Gospels  (p.  97,  ff.)  I  have  too  decidedly  rejected  the  possibil- 
ity of  a  connexion  between  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians  and  Peter,  and  that  of  Mark. 
According  to  the  general  analogy,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  also  suffered 
corrruptions ;  and  it  still  remains  possible  that  one  of  the  writings  belonging  to  the  apoc- 
ryphal books  of  Peter's  partisans  was  a  corrupted  Gospel  by  Mark.  Schn.ecl;enburger, 
Ueber  das  Evangelium  der  Aegyptier.  Bern,  1834,  takes  it  to  be  a  work  related  to  the 
evayyihwv  naff1  'Eppaiov?,  used  by  the  Ebionites.  Prom  the  Gospel  of  John,  published 
by  Miinter  (Copenhagen,  1828),  we  see  that  it  also,  though  not  till  a  late  period,  suffered 
corruption  from  the  Gnostics.  Consult  Ullmann  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  Jahrg.  L, 
H.  iv.,  S.  818,  ff. 

f  Consult  the  Author's  Gesch.  der  Evangelien,  S.  440. 


INTRODUCTION.  147 

in  the  ancient  church  he  had  in  view,  does  not  clearly  appear.  The 
Latinisms  found  in  his  Gospel  are  not  -of  themselves  sufficient  to 
stamp  it  with  a  Roman  character.  The  evident  pains  bestowed  on 
that  vividness  of  narration  which  is  characteristic  of  his  Gospel, 
might  be  regarded  as  a  more  conclusive  proof.  The  Roman  na- 
tional character,  displays  unquestionably  an  adaptedness  to  the  out- 
ward and  the  practical,  which  is  in  some  measure  reflected  in  Mark. 
He  depicts  with  graphic  power  the  minuter  features  of  an  ac- 
tion, and  transports  his  readers  into  the  very  scene.  Compare 
particularly  Mark  v.  1-20,  22-43  ;  vi.  17-29  ;  ix.  14,  ff.,  with  the 
parallel  passages  ;  also  Mark  vii.  32-37  ;  viii.  22-26,  which  are  pecu- 
liar to  him.  This  picturesqueness  manifests  itself  mainly  in  the  nar- 
ratives of  cures,  and  most  of  all  in  the  cures  of  certain  demo- 
niacs (Mark  v.  1,  ff.;  ix.  14,  ff.)  In  his  exhibition  of  the  Saviour's 
spiritual  character,  and  especially  of  his  discourses,  he  is  strikingly 
inferior.  We  cannot,  therefore,  regard  his  mere  vividness  of  por- 
traiture as  elevating  him  decidedly  above  Matthew.  It  would 
seem,  also,  that  he  aims  only  to  give  a  vivid  sketch  of  our 
Lord's  official  labours.  His  narrative  therefore  opens  with  the  bap- 
tism. 


§  6.  ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

The  person  to  whom  tradition  refers  the  third  Gospel,  is  Luke, 
who  is  sufficiently  known,  from  sacred  history,  as  the  companion  of 
the  Apostle  Paul.  His  name  is  the  shortened  form  of  Lucanus— as 
Alexas  of  Alexander,  Cleopas  of  Cleopatros.  That  he  was  a  physi- 
cian, is  placed  beyond  doubt,  by  Col.  iv.  14  ;  and  there  is  nothing 
improbable  in  the  statement  of  the  fathers,  that  he  was  a  native  of 
Antioch.  He  was  a  heathen  by  birth,  as  is  satisfactorily  proved  by 
Col.  iv.  14,  compared  with  verse  11,  and  still  more  by  the  scope  of 
his  book.  As  Matthew  evidently  had  in  view  the  Jewish,  so 
Luke  the  heathen  Christians.  He  might  be  led  to  write  for 
them,  not  only  from  national  sympathy,  but  also  by  the  example 
of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  who  controlled  the  direction  of  his 
labours.  According  to  the  tradition  of  the  fathers  (Euseb.  H.  E. 
iii.  4,  v.  8,  vi.  25 ;  TertulL  adv.  Marc.  iv.  5),  Paul  is  also  said  to 
have  exercised  a  confirmatory  influence  on  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  like 
that  of  Peter  on  Mark's  ;  which  information  is  confirmed  in  a  simi- 
lar way  by  the  rapid  dissemination  of  the  book,  and  its  universal 
acknowledgment  in  the  ancient  church.  But  the  internal  structure 
of  the  Gospel  shows  more  than  all,  that  it  sprang  from  the  Pauline 
school,  which  it  represents  in  the  Gospel-collection. 

The  universal  character  of  this  Gospel  manifests  itself  at  once 


148  INTBODTJCTION. 

in  its  carrying  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  up  to  Adam,  while  Matthew 
stops  at  Abraham,  the  ancestor  of  the  Jews  ;  in  the  account  of 
the  sending  forth  of  the  seventy  disciples  as  the  representa- 
tives of  all  nations,  while  Matthew  speaks  only  of  the  twelve 
apostles  going  forth  as  representatives  of  the  twelve  tribes  ;  and 
finally,  in  the  omission  of  every  circumstance  which  betrays  any 
Jewish  exclusiveness.*  It  may,  therefore,  be  said,  that  as  Mat- 
thew represents  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  so  Luke  re- 
presents him  as  the  Messiah  of  the  heathen — i.  e.,  as  he  in  whom 
all  the  higher  aspirations  of  the  heathen  world  were  realized,  and 
who  made  the  heathen  themselves  the  object  of  his  labours.  As 
respects  the  form  of  delineation,  Luke  has  the  peculiarity  of  exhib- 
iting, with  great  vividness  and  truth  (especially  in  the  long  journey 
narrated  in  ix.  51 — xviii.  14),  not  so  much  the  discourses,  as  the 
conversations  of  Jesus,  with  the  occasions  which  gave  rise  to  them, 
the  remarks  interposed  by  the  bystanders,  and  the  way  in  which 
they  terminated  ;  so  that  each  of  the  Evangelists  teaches  us,  even 
in  his  mode  of  delineation,  to  view  the  Saviour  from  a  different 
aspect.  Accordingly  it  was  founded  in  the  nature  of  the  relations, 
that  the  ultra  partisans  of  Paul — and,  as  such,  we  must  regard  the 
Marcionites — used  this  Gospel,  in  which  their  tendency  is  most 
definitely  embodied,  in  preference  to  the  others,  and  only  endea- 
voured to  remove,  as  Jewish  additions,  so  much  as  did  not  agree 
with  their  exaggerated  or  mistaken  Pauline  views  of  the  law  and 
the  Gospel,  f 

In  determining  the  place  and  time  of  the  composition  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  the  person  of  Theophilus,  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  addressed, 
may,  in  some  measure,  guide  us.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of 
reputation  (see  note  on  Luke  i.  3),  and  a  resident  of  Italy.  For  we 
observe  that  the  Evangelist,  in  treating  of  Oriental  subjects,  every- 
where adds  explanations,  and  particularly,  exact  designations  of 
place,  in  regard  even  to  the  best  known  localities.  In  relation,  on  the 
contrary,  to  the  most  inconsiderable  places  of  Italy,  they  are 
omitted,  as  with  these  he  could  assume  a  familiarity  on  the  part  of 
his  reader.  Borne  is,  therefore,  in  all  probability,  to  be  regarded  as 
the  place  of  composition  for  this  Gospel  also,  whither,  in  particular, 
we  are  led,  by  the  close  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  second 

*  Luke,  alike  in  his  active  life,  as  companion  of  Paul,  and  in  his  writings,  gives  em- 
phasis to  all  that  which  serves  for  proof  of  the  truth  that  the  Saviour  came  not  for  Israel 
as  a  people,  but  only  for  the  believing  Israelites,  and  not  for  the  Israelites  only,  but  also 
for  the  believing  heathen. — [E. 

f  That  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  is  a  mutilated  Gospel  by  Luke,  has  been  convincingly 
shown  by  Hahn  in  his  well-known  work,  Das  Evangelium  Marcions  in  seiner  urspriing- 
lichen  Gestalt,  Konigsberg,  1823.  Consult  the  Author's  work  on  the  Gospels,  p.  106,  ffi 
The  counter-assertions  of  Schulz  in  TJllmann's  Studien  (B.  ii.  H.  3)  still  remain  unestab- 
liahed. 


INTRODUCTION.  149 

part  of  the  Evangelist's  work.  For,  without  a  formal  close,  it 
breaks  off  with  the  second  year  of  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome  ; 
and  as  Luke  was  in  company  with  Paul  during  that  imprisonment, 
we  can  assign  the  place  of  composition  with  much  probability. 
Further,  as  nothing  is  added  about  the  issue  of  Paul's  affairs, 
there  remains  but  little  obscurity  as  to  the  time  of  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel.  It  must  have  been  written  shortly  before  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  during  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome,  and  about 
sixty-four  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  For  it  is  not  likely  that 
a  great  space  of  time  elapsed  between  the  composition  of  the  Gospel 
and  that  of  the  Acts,  as  the  two  works  are  so  closely  connect- 
ed. In  all  probability,  also,  Luke's  acquaintance  with  Theophilus 
was  the  fruit  of  his  stay  in  Rome.  DC  Wette  (Einleitung  ins.  N. 
,T.,  S.  182)  draws  from  such  passages  as  Luke  xxi.  17,  ff.,  the  con- 
clusion, that  this  Gospel  must  have  been  written  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  ;  but  our  remarks  on  Matth.  xxiv.  15,  will  show 
that  this  conclusion  is  untenable. 


§  7.  ON  THE  HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPEL-HISTORY. 

The  propensity  to  look  everywhere  for  connexion  and  unity,  is 
too  deeply  seated  in  human  nature  not  to  have  sought  its  gratifica- 
tion in  attempts  to  form  a  connected  account  of  the  Saviour's  life 
out  of  the  different  Gospels.  Such  an  undertaking  meets  a  practi- 
cal want,  by  rendering  easier  the  survey  of  all  the  circumstances  in 
his  life  ;  so  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  hear,  even  at  a  very 
early  period,  of  attempts  to  form  the  different  accounts  of  the  Evan- 
gelists into  a  connected  whole,  such  as  were  made  by  Tatian®  Am- 
monius,  and  Eusebius.  But  the  narratives  of  the  Evangelists  do 
not  admit  of  being  reduced  to  a  certain  and  strictly  scientific 
unity.  The  difficulties  in  the  construction  of  a  Gospel  har- 
mony lie  in  this,  that  some  of  the  Evangelists  have  conducted 
their  narratives  with  no  reference  to  the  order  of  time.  They 
begin  their  histories,  indeed,  with  the  Saviour's  birth,  and  close 
them  with  his  death,  as  it  could  hardly  be  otherwise  in  a  biogra- 
phy ;  but  the  main  body  of  the  Gospel-history — the  exhibition 
of  the  official  labours  of  Jesus— is  so  treated,  that  the  intention  of 
preserving  a  definite  chronological  order  in  the  events  narrated  is 

*  Tatiaris  work  I  have  called,  in  my  History  of  the  Gospels,  p.  335,  ff.,  a  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels  ;  but  the  zeal  with  which  Theodoret,  in  the  fifth  century,  caused  it  to  be 
destroyed,  points  to  grave  heretical  corruptions  which  it  contained.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Tatian  made  a  compilation  from  the  whole  Gospel-collection,  such  as  suited  las  pur- 
poses, and  took  the  liberty  of  making  considerable  alterations  in  the  text,  which  his  ad- 
herents probably  further  increased.  Concerning  other  harmonies,  consult  §  9  of  this 
Introduction. 


150  INTRODUCTION. 

nowhere  perceptible.  In  Matthew,  first  of  all,  there  is  found  from 
the  temptation  (ch.  iv.),  down  to  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  (xx. 
17),  no  exact  statement  of  time  which  might  serve  for  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  material.  For  the  most  part,  the  Evangelist  passes 
from  one  point  to  another,  without  any  thing  to  fix  the  time  (iv.  12, 
18,  23  ;  viii.  5,  18,  23,  28  ;  ix.  1,  9,  35  ;)  or  he  uses  an  indefinite 
TOTE,  then,  to  connect  them  (in.  13  ;  iv.  1 ;  ix.  14 ;  xi.  20  ;  xii.  22, 
38  ;  xv.  1);  or  he  arranges  the  several  histories,  one  after  an- 
other, with  the  comprehensive  formulas,  iv  ratg  ^pepaig  £KKIVCU<;, 
in  those  days  (iii.  1  ;  xiii.  1),  iv  iieeivu  TW  Katpu,  in  that  time  (xiv. 
1),  iv  etteivq  rq  &pa,  in  that  hour  (xviii.  /I).  Precise  statements  as 
to  time  (as  Matth.  xvii.  1,  [ted'  faepag  e£,  after  six  days)  are  ex- 
tremely rare.  The  large  collections  of  discourses  in  Matthew  show 
that  his  prevailing  aim  was  to  portray  the  character  of  Jesus,  apart 
from  time  and  place,  and,  by  a  grouping  together  of  kindred  actions 
and  discourses,  to  bring  him  before  the  reader's  mind  in  his  differ- 
ent spheres  of  labour.  In  the  case  of  Mark,  this  neglect  of 
time  and  place  is  still  more  striking  :  even  these  general  data  are 
for  the  most  part  wanting  with  him.  He  usually  gives  his  narra- 
tive unaccompanied  by  remarks  ;  he  aims  merely  at  a  vivid  por- 
trayal of  the  facts,  without  uniting  them  by  any  fixed  principle 
of  arrangement.  Luke's  chronology  appears  at  first  sight  more 
exact  ;  so  that  we  might  expect  to  find  in  him  events  narrated 
in  their  natural  succession.  At  the  very  commencement,  in 
ch.  i.  3,  Kadegfjs,  in  order  (see  comment,  on  the  passage),  seems 
to  point  to  a  chronological  arrangement  ;  then  follows  (iii.  1) 
a  very  important  date  for  the  chronology  of  the  life  of  Jesus  ; 
and  (iii.  23)  he  remarks  that  the  Saviour  was  thirty  years  of 
age  at  his  entrance  on  his  ministry.  Yet,  in  the  course  of  the 
Gospel,  we  find  the  same  indefiniteness  in  his  arrangement  as 
in  that  of  the  others.  For  the  most  part,  Luke,  too,  joins  one 
narration  to  another,  without  statement  of  time  (iv.  16,  31  ;  v. 
12,  33;  vii.  18,  36  ;  viii.  26  ;  ix.  1,  18);  sometimes  the  indefi- 
nite transitions  i^erd  ravra,  after  this  (v.  27),  iv  fj-ta  r&v  ^fiepwv, 
on  one  of  the  days  (v.  17  ;  viii.  22),  and  the  like,  are  inter- 
changed ;  so  that  it  often  becomes  doubtful  whether,  even  in  Luke, 
events  are  always  arranged  according  to  the  succession  of  time  ; 
but  still,  even  if  this  be  probable,  a  complete  arrangement  of  the 
events  in  the  Saviour's  life  cannot  be  accomplished  by  means  of 
Luke,  because  no  fixed  points  of  connexion  with  the  other  Gos- 
pels can  be  laid  down  in  the  body  of  the  narrative — that  is, 
from  the  baptism  of  Jesus  to  his  last  journey  to  the  feast  (Matth. 
xx.  17  ;  Mark  x.  32  ;  Luke  xviii.  31);  for,  after  this,  there  is 
less  lack  of  chronological  data.  True,  it  might  be  thought,  that 
Buch  a  point  is  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  transfiguration, 


INTRODUCTION.  151 

since  all  the  three  Evangelists  (Matth.  xvii.  1  ;  Mark  ix.  2 ;  Luke 
ix.  28)  connect  it  with  what  precedes  by  ped'  r^epag  ££,  after 
six  days.  (The  ditTtb  ^ipai,  in  Luke  are  the  same  period,  but 
differently  reckoned).  Yet  if,  commencing  at  this  point,  we  make 
the  attempt  to  arrange  the  events  backwards  and  onwards,  the 
thread  is  soon  lost.  But  if,  with  the  events,  it  appears  impossi- 
ble to  connect  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists  into  an  or- 
derly whole,  it  is  still  more  so-  with  the  discourses.  What  appears 
in  Matthew  (v — vii.,  x.,  xiii.,  xxiii.,  and  in  several  other  places)  as 
spoken  in  connexion,  Luke  gives  broken  up  and  widely  scattered  ; 
so  that  the  very  first  attempt  to  restore  the  different  parts  of  the 
discourses  of  Jesus  to  their  chronological  connexion,  demonstrates 
the  impossibility  of  so*  doing,  at  least  if  the  compilation,  instead  of 
serving  merely  a  practical  purpose,  is  to  claim  scientific  certainty. 

Thus  John  alone  remains,  whose  careful  chronological  arrange- 
ment strikes  the  eye,  and  who  seems,  therefore,  to  afford  very  im- 
portant materials  for  the  chronological  arrangement  of  the  chief 
events  at  least,  in  the  first  three  Gospels.  For  though,  now  and 
then,  an  indefinite  fj^ra  ravra,  after  this,  occurs  even  in  John  (as 
iii.  22  ;  vi.  1  ;  vii.  1,  and  elsewhere),  he  usually  states  exactly, 
whether  one  day  (i.  29,  35,  44  ;  vi.  22  ;  xii.  12),  or  two  (iv.  40.  43), 
or  three  (ii.  1),  or  several  days,  intervened  between  the  events  re- 
corded. The  discourses,  also,  are  in  John  so  connected  with  the 
occurrences  mentioned,  and  are  so  complete  in  themselves,  that  they 
acquire,  in  their  full  extent,  a  fixed  chronological  place.  The  chief 
point,  however,  is  that  John  gives  us  great  divisions  in  the  life  of 
our  Lord,  between  which  we  can  endeavour  to  arrange  the  separate 
events.  Besides  the  last  passover  (xiii.  1),  which  is  mentioned  by 
the  synoptical  Evangelists  also,  he  speaks  distinctly  of  another  pass- 
over,  at  which  Jesus  was  present  (ii.  13)  ;  and  between  these  two 
fixed  points  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
John  mentions  further  two  feasts  which  the  Saviour  celebrated  at 
Jerusalem — viz.,  the  feast  of  the  dedication  of  the  temple  (x.  22), 
and  the  feast  of  tabernacles  (vii.  2).  Besides  these,  mention  is 
made  (v.  1)  of  another  feast ;  but  its  character  is  left  undetermined. 
If  we  possessed  only  the  records  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  we  should 
know  nothing  certain  of  these  journeys  of  Jesus  to  the  feasts  ;  we 
could  only  arrive  at  the  probable  conclusion,  that  he  would  cer- 
tainly not  have  neglected  the  Old  Testament  command  (Ex.  xxiii. 
17)  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  three  great  feasts,  since  we  find 
him  so  scrupulous  in  the  observance  of  the  law  in  other  points. 
Yet  there  is  no  clear  evidence,  even  from  John,  of  the  number  of 
journeys  to  the  feasts,  which  took  place  during  the  ministry  of 
Jesus,  and  hence  the  relation  of  the  occurrences  to  the  chronology 
of  Christ's  active  ministry  still  remains  obscure.  What  John  nar- 


152  INTRODUCTION. 

• 

rates,  certainly  occurred  in  the  order  in  which  he  narrates  it ;  but  it 
is  uncertain  how  long  a  period  is  included — whether  he  details  the 
events  of  one  year,  of  two  years,  or  of  several.  First  of  all,  we 
cannot  prove  that  John  has  left  no  journey  of  Jesus  to  the  feasts 
unmentioned.  Moreover,  the  indefiniteness  of  the  passage  (v.  1#) 
makes  his  whole  chronology  uncertain  ;  for  although  much  may 
be  said  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  the  festival  there  referred 
to  was  a  passover,  f  yet  this  cannot  be  fully  ascertained,  particularly 
as  we  read  so  soon  as  vi.  4  of  another  nearly  approaching  passover ; 
for  it  is,  after  all,  harsh  to  refer  iyyvs,  near,  to  the  passover  that 
was  gone  by,  as  Dr.  Paulus  does.  (See  the  retrospect  quoted  in  the 
note.)  Whether,  therefore,  according  to  John's  representation,  Jesus 
celebrated  three  passovers  or  four  at  Jerusalem  during  his  ministry, 
cannot  be  stated  with  certainty  ]%  and  how  difficult  it  must 
be  to  use  the  notices  of  John  respecting  the  journeys  of  Jesus, 
for  the  purpose  of  arranging  the  historical  materials  of  the  other 
Gospels,  appears  sufficiently  from  the  one  circumstance,  that,  as 
he  gives  hardly  any  information  about  the  life  of  Jesus  but  such 
as  the  other  Evangelists  had  not  given,  no  point  of  contact  between 
them  and  him  can  be  assigned.  The  history  of  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand  (John  vi.  1-15),  with  the  walking  on  the  sea  imme- 
diately following  it  (vi.  16-21),  is  the  only  event  which  is  parallel 
with  Matthew  (xiv.  13,  ff.),  Mark  (vi.  30,  ff.),  and  Luke  (ix.  10,  ff.); 
and  the  first  two  Evangelists,  Matthew  and  Mark,  like  John,  con- 
nect Christ's  walking  on  the  sea  with  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand. Yet  as,  on  the  one  hand,  the  connexion  of  events  cannot  be 
pursued  with  certainty,  and,  on  the  other,  the  exact  time  of  the 
miraculous  feeding  is  uncertain,  even  in  John,  on  account  of  the  in- 
defmiteness  of  v.  1  and  vi.  4,  so  we  reach  nothing  conclusive  for 
the  arrangement  of  the  whole  from  this  single  point  of  contact.§ 
Whether  any  particular  event  belongs  to  the  beginning  or  the 
close  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  is  sufficiently  shewn,  it  is 

*  Kaiser,  in  his  Synopsis  (Niirnberg,  1828),  regards  it  as  a  feast  of  tabernacles.  Con- 
sult the  commentary  on  the  passage. 

f  Consult  the  chronological  retrospect  at  the  end  of  the  first  volume  of  Dr.  Paulus? 
Commentary  on  the  Gospels. 

\  In  reference  to  the  chronological  difficulties  in  John's  Gospel  ilselfj  we  must  fur- 
ther compare  the  passage  (x.  22)  in  which  John  passes  on  to  the  feast  of  the  dedica- 
tion, in  a  way  that  leaves  it  altogether  uncertain  how  the  presence  of  Jesus  at  that  feast 
stands  related  to  his  presence  at  the  foast  of  tabernacles  (vii.  2),  since  no  mention  is  made 
either  of  his  going  away  or  remaining.  It  might  even  be  thought  to  be  the  feast  of  de- 
dication in  another  year,  were  it  not  that  the  following  discourse  (x.  27,  28)  refers  too 
plainly  to  the  preceding  context  (x.  12,  13). 

§  Just  so  Liicke  observes  in  his  Commentar  uber  den  Johannes,  Th.  i.,  S.  526:  "How 
that  which  John  has  mentioned  out  of  the  variety  of  events  may  bo  chronologically 
harmonized  with  what  the  first  three  Evangelists  narrate  in  the  above-mentioned  (mid- 
dle) period,  is  an  insolvable  problem  of  historical  criticism."  See  the  further  remarks,  S. 
614,  615,  of  the  same  work. 


INTRODUCTION.  153 

true,  partly  by  its  position  in  the  Goapels,  partly  by  its  internal 
character;  but  the  character  of  the  Evangelists'  narrative,  who 
commonly  leave  time  and  place  undetermined,  admits  of  our  bring- 
ing neither  all  the  separate  incidents  recorded  of  the  Saviour, 
nor  his  discourses,  into  precise  chronological  connexion.  We, 
therefore,  take  the  Gospel-history  as  it  is  given  to  us,  following  the 
chronological  order  as  far  as  the  Evangelists  enable  us  to  discover  it 
plainly,  but  nowhere  bringing  it  out  violently  and  artificially  where 
it  has  not  been  given.  According  to  the  synopsis  of  De  Wette  and 
LiicJce,  which  we  take  as  the  foundation  of  our  exposition,  we  shall 
first  treat  of  the  history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus  and  his  baptism  ; 
and,  last,  of  the  narrative  of  his  sufferings,  resurrection,  and  ascen- 
sion (combining  John's  description  of  these  latter  circumstances)  ; 
but  with  respect  to  the  intermediate  materials  of  the  Gospel-history, 
we  shall  chiefly  follow  Matthew,  incorporating  with  his  narrative — 
where  they  appear  to  us  most  probably  to  belong — those  portions 
contained  only  in  Mark  and  Luke,  or  in  either  one  of  them.  The 
editors  of  the  synopsis  have,  indeed,  treated  this  part  in  such  a 
manner,  as  to  give  the  whole  matter  three  times  over  according  to 
the  order  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  A  threefold  exegetical  dis- 
cussion of  this  part  would  certainly  have  secured  no  small  advan- 
tages ;  they  had,  however,  to  be  sacrificed,  as  requiring  too  much 
space. 

§  8.  ON  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  GOSPEL-HISTORY. 

The  description  given  above  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels  from 
separate  memoirs,  whose  authors  are  unknown,  the  character  of  the 
Gospel-history  itself,  through  a  large  portion  of  which  we  can  trace 
no  chronological  arrangement,  and  lastly,  the  distinct  discrepancies 
discoverable  in  various  events,  particularly  in  the  composition  of 
the  discourses — are  all  circumstances  which  seem  to  endanger 
the  credibility  of  the  Gospel-history,  especially  in  such  events 
as  lay  without  the  immediate  knowledge  of  any  one  of  the  narrators, 
as,  for  instance,  the  childhood  of  Jesus.  The  Gospels  seem  in  this 
way  to  acquire  the  appearance  of  an  unarranged  aggregate  of  se- 
parate and  uncertain  accounts,  which  neither  agree  precisely  with 
each  other,  nor  even,  in  each  individual  Gospel,  stand  in  strict  con- 
nexion. The  older  theology  was  apprehensive  that,  by  a  view  such 
as  modern  criticism  has  established,  the  sacred  character  of  the  Gos- 
pel-history would  be  entirely  taken  away.  Starting  from  the  literal 
inspiration*  of  the  sacred  writers,  they  laboured  to  force  a  harmony, 

*  I  distinguish  literal  inspiration  from  verbal,  and  maintain  the  latter,  while  I  deny 
the  former.    The  distinction  between  them  does  not  lie,  as  I  think,  in  the  essence  and  the 
form  (for  the  form,  too,  is  necessary  in  one  aspect),  but  in  the  essential  and  the  unesseti 
tialform.    But  the  question,  Where  is  the  essential  in  the  form  separated  from  the  uncs- 


154  INTRODUCTION. 

and  to  reconcile  all  discrepancies  in  facts  and  words  ;  but,  from  the 
character  of  the  Gospels,  this  procedure  could  not  but  lead  to  the 
most  arbitrary  treatment ; — that  is  to  say,  wherever  there  appeared 
a  difference,  whether  in  the  events  or  in  the  discourses,  the  event  or 
the  discourse  was  always  said  to  have  been  twice,  and  sometimes 
even  thrice  repeated.  By  setting  up  the  principle,  therefore,  that 
the  Gospel-history  must  agree  in  all  things  external  and  non-essen- 
tial, they  put  weapons  into  the  hands  of  the  enemies  of  God's  Word  ; 
the  evident  non-agreement  was  used  as  an  argument  for  denying 
the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures.  The  true  course,  therefore,  is,  in 
this  case,  also,  to  adhere  to  the  truth,  plainly  to  acknowledge  the 
evident  fact  of  discrepancies  in  the  Gospel-history,  to  seek  for  a  re- 
conciliation of  these  variations  where  it  presents  itself  naturally,  but 
to  resort  to  nothing  far-fetched  or  forced.  An  external  agreement 
in  the  Gospel-history  should  not  be  absolutely  required  as  proof 
of  its  divinity,  any  more  than  in  the  formations  of  nature  ;  as 
in  them  exact  regularity  is  combined  with  the  greatest  freedom, 
BO  also,  in  the  Gospel-history,  perfect  agreement  in  what  is  es- 
sential, is  found  with  the  freest  treatment  of  what  is  unessen- 
tial.* The  credibility  of  the  Gospel-history  is  securely  based  only 
on  the  identity  of  that  vital  principle  which  reigned  in  all  the  indi- 
vidual Evangelists,  and  in  which  the  whole  new  communion,  of 
which  they  were  but  members,  shared.  That  vital  principle  was  the 
Spirit  who  guides  into  all  truth.  But  this  Spirit,  who  inspired  the 
Evangelists  and  the  whole  company  of  the  apostles,  neither  relieved 
them  from  the  use  of  the  ordinary  means  of  historical  inquiry,  as,  for 
instance,  the  use  of  family  memoirs  or  narratives  of  single  events ; 
nor  did  he  obliterate  their  peculiarities,  and  use  them  as  passive 
organs ;  he  rather  spiritualized  their  individual  capacities  and 
powers,  gave  them  a  sure  faculty  (tact)  of  separating  every 
thing  false  in  matters  of  faith  and  in  the  essentials  of  the  narra- 
tive ;  of  recognizing  what  was  genuine  and  appropriate,  and  of 
arranging  it  according  to  a  profounder  principle.  Although, 

sential  f — what  is  word,  what  is  tetter  f — will  never  admit  of  being  answered  as  respects 
individual  cases,  so  that  all  shall  be  satisfied,  because  the  mind's  subjective  attitude  ex- 
ercises too  much  influence  over  our  views  on  the  point.  In  general,  however,  those  who 
are  one  in  the  principles,  will  be  able  to  unite  in  this  canon  :  The  form  of  Scripture  is  to 
be  regarded  as  essential,  as  far  as  it  is  connected  with  what  is  essential  in  the  doctrine,  and 
is,  consequently,  also  to  be  ascribed  to  inspiration ;  it  is  only  where  there  is  no  such  connexion, 
that  the  form  is  to  le  regarded  as  unessential.  Consult,  further,  TholncVs  excellent  disser- 
tation on  the  contradictions  in  the  Gospels,  in  his  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  Evangelischen 
Geschichte  gegen  Straws,  Hamburg,  1837,  S.  429,  ff.,  which  preserves  just  the  right  me- 
dium. 

*  Literal  agreement  in  the  Gospels,  would  have  suggested  to  the  enemies  of  the  truth, 
the  charge  of  a  concert  among  the  authors  to  deceive ;  as  Scripture  now  is,  it  appears  at 
once  divine  and  human.  [A  clear  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  variations  and  con- 
tradictions. The  former  may,  of  course,  be  assumed  in  the  Evangelists.  "We  must  re- 
quire the  strongest  evidence  before  admitting  the  latter. — [K. 


INTRODUCTION.  155 

therefore,  the  Evangelists  sometimes  threw  the  elements  of  our 
Lord's  discourses  into  other  than  their  original  combinations,  the 
import  of  those  parts,  although  modified,  is  not  altered.  For,  as  the 
living  Word,  which  the  Lord  himself  was,  wrought  in  the  Evange- 
lists also,  and  inspired  them,  it  formed  in  each  of  them  a  new  spirit- 
ual whole,  in  which  the  members  of  the  separated  whole  appear 
harmoniously  re-united. 

This  view  of  the  Scripture — of  its  unity  in  essentials,  and  its  di- 
versity in  non-essentials — equally  leads  away  from  the  superstitious 
reverence  of  the  dead  letter,  and  prompts  to  the  search  for  the  living 
Spirit;  yet  it  stands  aloof  from  that  hollow  spirituality  which 
fancies  itself  able  to  do  without  the  external  word,  and  thereby  falls 
into  the  danger  of  taking  its  empty  dreams  for  essential  ideas  of  the 
truth.  Although,  therefore,  Providence  intended  that  external 
proofs  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  should  not  be  wanting,  yet 
it  has  not  permitted  that  the  credibility  of  the  events  recorded  in 
them  should  be  incontrovertibly  demonstrated.  Occasions  are  left 
for  doubt  and  suspicion ;  and  by  these  the  Gospel  history  fulfils 
a  part  of  its  design,  since  Christ,  in  Scripture,  as  well  as  when 
personally  labouring  on  earth,  is  set  for  the  fall  of  many.  (Luke  ii. 
34.)  In  every  reader  of  the  Gospel-history,  therefore,  is  presupposed 
a  readiness  to  receive  the  Spirit  of  truth.  Where  this  exists,  the 
Gospel-history,  in  its  peculiar  character,  asserts  its  claims  with  over- 
whelming force.  For,  although  the  Gospel  partakes  of  the  general 
character  of  history  and  biography,  yet,  as  its  subject  is  itself  incom- 
parable, it  is,  in  its  treatment  of  the  subject,  not  to  be  compared 
with  any  other  work  of  the  kind.  The  Evangelists  write  in  a  style 
of  childlike  artlessness  and  lofty  simplicity,  such  as  are  found  nowhere 
else  thus  united.  Their  individual  views  and  feelings  entirely  dis- 
appear— they  narrate  without  making  reflections,  without  bursting 
into  expressions  of  praise,  or  blame,  or  admiration,  even  in  portray- 
ing the  sublimest  events.  They  appear,  as  it  were,  absorbed  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  mighty  picture  displayed  before  them,  and, 
forgetting  themselves,  reflect  its  features  in  their  pure  truth.  The 
Gospel-history,  therefore,  bears  witness  to  itself  and  its  own  cu'edibil- 
ity,  in  no  other  way  than  did  our  Lord  himself ;  He  had  no  witness 
but  himself  and  the  Father,  (John  viii.  18)  ;  so  the  Gospel-his- 
tory (like  the  Scripture  in  general)  bears  witness  to  itself  only 
through  the  Divine  Spirit,  who  reigns  in  it.  He  that  is  of  the 
truth,  hears  his  voice. 

It  is  only  where  this  Spirit  has  not  yet  displayed  his  power, 
that  the  conception  could  arise  that  the  history  of  Christ  is  on 
a  par  with  other  biographies  of  great  men  ;  and,  that,  therefore, 
what  is  miraculous  in  it,  as  well  as  in  them,  should  be  regarded 
as  a  myth.  The  want  of  personal  experience  of  the  regenerating 


156  INTRODUCTION. 

power  of  Christ — the  want  of  that  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  alone  assures  us  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  has 
always  caused  offence  to  "be  taken  at  the  miraculous  garb  that  in- 
vests the  person  of  our  Lord.  In  ancient  times  this  offence  simply 
took  the  form  of  a  hostile  attitude  towards  the  church.  It  is  re- 
served for  very  recent  times,  to  see  this  offence  pretending  to  be 
an  advance  in  Christian  science.  It  appeared  first  in  the  form  of 
what  was  called  the  natural  explanation,  the  very  unnaturalness  of 
which  has,  however,  long  since  pronounced  its  condemnation  ;  it. 
needs,  accordingly,  no  further  refutation.  Then,  especially  since  the 
time  of  Gabler,  it  appeared  in  the  form  of  the  mythical  explanation, 
which  also  has  been  pushed  on  to  self-destruction  through  its  very 
extreme  application  by  Strauss.  The  inapplicability  of  the  mythi- 
cal exposition  to  the  life  of  Jesus  is  incontrovertibly  manifest :  1. 
From  the  nearness,  in  point  of  time,  of  the  documents  which  record  it 
— namely,  the  four  canonical  Gospels,  the  antiquity  and  genuineness 
of  which  are  satisfactorily  demonstrable  on  internal  and  external 
grounds.  As  long  as  the  eye-witnesses  of  the  miraculous  events  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  were  living,  there  could  be  no  such  things  as  myths 
viz.,  formations  of  involuntary,  inventive  rumour — but  only  produc- 
tions of  enthusiasm  or  deceit  ;  2.  From  the  acknoivledged  genuine- 
ness of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  as  loell 
as  of  the  other  principal  writings  of  the  Neiu  Testament.  Hitherto 
no  one  has  ventured  to  pronounce  the  chief  Epistles  of  Paul  and 
John  to  be  spurious,*  and  yet  they  contain  precisely  the  same  view 
of  the  person  of  Christ  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  four  Gospels. 
This  appears,  consequently,  to  have  been  the  early  Christian  view. 
If  the  mythical  explanation  is  to  be  defended,  nothing  is  left  but  to 
pronounce  the  Apostle  Paul  an  enthusiast  or  a  deceiver  ;  3.  The 
rise  of  the  Christian  Church — the  continuity  of  feeling  in  it — the 
purity  of  the  Spirit  that  wrought  in  it,  with  especial  power,  in  the  first 
centuries,  do  not  allow  us,  in  any  way,  to  conceive  of  merely  a  beau- 
tiful romance  as  the  ultimate  foundation  of  these  phenomena. 
That  a  church  could  be  formed  of  Jews  and  heathen,  who  worshipped 
a  crucified  Son  of  God,  is,  according  to  the  mythical  view  of  the  life 
of  Jesus,  a  far  greater  miracle  than  all  those  which  it  is  intended  to 
dispense  with.  It  is  only  from  the  records  of  the  Evangelists,  taken 
as  history,  that  this  fact  becomes  conceivable.  Since,  moreover,  in 
this  church,  while  gradually  extending  itself  over  the  world,  there 
was  still  a  constant  connexion  of  feeling,  and  a  spirit  of  purity,  never 

*  Since  negative  criticism  has  advanced  to  its  extreme  limit,  it  is  no  longer  myths, 
but  wilful  fabrications  which  are  discerned  in  the  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
the  letters  of  John.  In  this,  however,  the  theory  has  uttered  its  own  sentence  of  death. 
See  on  this  point,  my  Kritik  der  Ev.  Geschichte,  2  te  AufL  (Critical  view  of  the  Gospel- 
history,  2d  ed.)  §  1  and  §  123-147.— [B. 


INTRODUCTION.  157 

previously  beheld,  inspired  it,  especially  in  the  very  early  times,  we 
cannot  perceive  where  we  can  find  room  for  the  pretended  formation 
of  myths.  It  can  be  found  only  on  the  unscientific  assumption,  that 
no  existing  records  date  from  the  first  Christian  century.  The 
mythical  scheme  appears,  accordingly,  a  partial,  indecisive  measure. 
The  decided  anti-Christian  spirit  will  pronounce  Christianity,  to- 
gether with  the  whole  Scripture,  the  product  of  enthusiasm  and 
deception. 

[The  theory  which  Strauss,  in  his  famous  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  at- 
tempted to  apply  to  the  history  of  Christ's  birth,  life,  sufferings, 
and  death,  needs  to  be  known,  as  to  its  general  features,  before  the 
remarks  in  the  text  above,  and  in  many  other  parts  of  this  work, 
can  be  understood.  Strauss  is  a  philosopher  of  the  school  of  Hegel 
— an  ultra-ideal  school — and  an  avowed  Pantheist.  Entertaining 
such  philosophical  views,  a  miracle  was,  to  him,  impossible,  and  the 
history  of  Jesus  could  not,  of  course,  be  literally  true  ;  and,  to  ac- 
count for  the  form  of  our  present  Gospel-narratives,  he  adopted  a 
theory  something  like  the  following : — Jesus  was  a  Jew.  who,  by 
early  training,  had  become  enthusiastically  desirous  of  seeing  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecies,  and,  at  length,  believed  himself  to  be 
the  Messiah.  Filled  with  the  loftiest  ideas  of  purity,  and  of  the 
high  destiny  of  man,  he  gathered  around  him  a  band  of  devoted 
disciples,  who  were  fired  with  something  of  his  own  enthusiasm. 
The  leading  idea  enforced  in  his  teaching,  was  the  union  attainable 
between  the  human  mind  and  the  divine.  At  length  he  died  a 
violent  death,  from  having  incurred  the  hatred  of  the  Pharisees.  A 
mere  skeleton  is  all  that  Strauss  leaves  of  his  life  as  historically 
true.  It  is  not  true,  he  says,  that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin — 
that  he  wrought  miracles — that  he  rose  from  the  dead — and  as- 
cended to  heaven.  Then  his  disciples  must  have  deceived  us,  we 
are  ready  to  exclaim.  No,  says  Strauss.  The  accounts  of  him  con- 
tained in  the  Gospels  were  the  product  of  their  fervid  imagina- 
tions ;  and,  without  the  slightest  intention  to  deceive,  there  grew  up 
among  his  followers  a  complete  history,  adorned  with  all  that  they 
thought  could  render  their  master's  memory  glorious.  The  Old  Tes- 
tament was  the  principal  source  of  the  additions  thus  made  to  the 
simple  narrative  of  Christ's  life.  Whatever  they  found  there  of  en- 
dowments from  above,  was  at  once  ascribed  to  the  Saviour,  who,  in 
their  view,  must  possess  all  that  Heaven  had  ever  bestowed  on  man. 
And,  in  particular,  they  sought,  to  embody  the  main  doctrine  of 
their  Master's  teachings — viz.,  the  union  of  our  souls  with  God,  as 
the  aim  of  life,  in  his  person,  by  uniting  in  that  person  the  divine 
and  human  natures. 

Taken  alone,  the  theory  seems  too  baseless  to  have  been  serious- 


158  INTKODUCTION. 

ly  proposed  and  applied  in  two  considerable  volumes  ;  but  the  his- 
tory of  religious  opinion  in  Germany  throws  some  light  on  its  origin. 
What  Kant  and  his  followers  denominated  moral  interpretation — 
that  is,  giving  a  moral  and  spiritual  meaning  to  historical  facts — 
had  been  exploded  sometime  previously,  and  had  been  succeeded  by 
the  natural  interpretation  adopted  by  the  nationalist  school,  with 
Paulus  at  their  head.  This  scheme  had,  in  its  turn,  been  exposed 
as  utterly  hollow,  because  it  was  plain  that  the  Evangelists  meant 
to  give  a  miraculous  history ;  and  it  is  dishonest  to  interpret  their 
language  otherwise.  Driven  from  these  two  refuges,  those  who 
would  not  take  the  Gospel-history  as  a  miraculous  one,  were  bound 
to  give  some  explanation  of  the  fact  of  such  a  history,  so  attested, 
being  in  existence.  And,  as  it  has  been  the  fashion  in  Germany,  to 
assume  a  mythical  period  in  the  history  of  Greece  and  Rome,  and 
many  other  nations,  Strauss  attempted  to  assign  the  history  of 
Jesus  to  such  a  period.  To  attain  his  end,  he  is  compelled  to  deny 
the  genuineness  of  every  one  of  the  Gospels,  and  ascribes  them  all 
to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era. 
The  theory  hardly  needs  refutation.  The  work  is  a  repository  of 
all  the  difficulties  that  beset  a  harmony  of  the  four  Gospels  ;  and, 
as  such,  may  cause  uneasiness  to  readers  who  are  not  properly  ac- 
quainted with  the  solutions  of  those  difficulties,  both  in  general  and 
in  particular  instances  ;  but  it  could  not  satisfy  any  but  a  thorough- 
ly infidel  mind,  glad  to  catch  at  any  hypothesis  that  gives  a  sem- 
blance of  ground  for  impugning  the  veracity  of  the  witnesses  of 
Christ's  life].— Tr. 


§  9.  SURVEY  OF  THE  LITEEATUBE. 

As  soon  as  the  active  labours  of  the  apostles,  who  wrought  chiefly 
with  the  living  Word,  ceased  in  the  church,  the  people  betook  them- 
selves to  those  written  legacies  which  they  had  bequeathed  to  the  church 
— in  order,  by  the  examination  of  the  written  Word,  partly  to  estab- 
lish themselves  more  thoroughly  in  the  known  truth,  and  partly  by 
it  to  separate  truth  and  falsehood.  Since  the  second  century,  many 
distinguished  men  have  devoted  their  powers  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  of  the  New  Testament  in  particular. 
Nevertheless,  its  contents  are  yet  unexhausted.  So  great  is  the 
depth  of  the  Word  of  God,  that  it  meets  the  utmost  wants  of  all 
times  and  all  relations,  of  every  degree  of  cultivation  and  develop- 
ment. It  lies,  however,  in  the  nature  of  the  church's  progress,  that 
by  gradual  advances  she  was  enabled  to  penetrate  with  ever-in- 
creasing depth  and  thoroughness  into  the  understanding  of  the 
Scriptures.  Our  own  times,  in  particular,  have  made  an  immense 


INTRODUCTION.  159 

advance  in  this  point,  that,  in  recognizing  more  and  more  the  com- 
prehensive sense  of  Scripture,  we  have  learnt  to  regard  the  greater 
portions  of  previous  expositions  not  so  much  as  absolutely  false,  as 
rather  embracing  but  a  single  phase  of  the  thought.  Hence  we  re- 
gard the  labours  of  centuries  to  understand  the  Scriptures  as  connect- 
ed, and  supplemental  to  one  another ;  while,  the  view  formerly 
prevalent,  made  it  necessary  to  pronounce  all  the  various  expositions, 
except  the  single  true  one,  a  mass  of  errors.  According  to  this,  the 
church  of  earlier  ages  must,  for  the  most  part,  have  utterly  failed  to 
understand  the  Scriptures,  which  would  be  saying,  in  other  words, 
that  the  spirit  had  not  been  in  the  church.  We  must  rather  say, 
that  the  church  has  always  understood  the  Bible  aright  in  essen- 
tials ;  but  that  a  still  profounder  understanding  of  it  has  been  grad- 
ually attained. 

In  the  first  place,  as  respects  the  general  works  which  embrace 
the  whole  New  Testament,  we  do  not  possess  a  complete  exposition 
of  the  whole  New  Testament  by  any  of  the  teachers  in  the  early 
church  ;  they  used  to  apply  themselves  at  first  to  single  books.  It 
is  not  till  the  ninth  century,  that  the  Glossa  Ordinaria,  by  Wala- 
frid  Strabo,  appears  as  a  continuous  commentary  on  the  New 
Testament,  if  indeed,  it  deserves  the  name  of  a  commentary  at  all. 
Subsequently  to  him,  Nicolaus  de  Lyra  and  Alphonsus  Tostatus, 
Bishop  of  Avilla,  in  Spain,  wrote  complete  commentaries  on  the 
entire  Scriptures — the  latter  in  twenty-three  folios.  At  the  time 
of  the  Eeformation,  Calvin  commented  on  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment except  the  Kevelation  of  St.  John  ;  as  well  as  Johann  Brenz, 
among  the  Lutherans,  seven  folios  of  whose  works  are  filled  with 
expositions  of  almost  all  the  books  in  the  Bible.  In  the  seventeenth 
century,  several  works  appeared,  embracing  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment. Besides  Hugo  Grotius  (in  his  Adnotationes  in  N.  T.,  2  vols. 
4to),  we  may  notice  particularly  the  collection  of  expositions  under 
the  name  Critici  Sacri  (London,  1660,  9  vols.  fol.),  of  which  Polus 
[Pool]  prepared  an  abridgment  ;  and  further,  Calovii  Biblia  Ittus- 
trata  (Francof.  1672,  4  vols.  fol.),  a  work  which  was  directed  against 
Grotius,  and  includes  the  exegetical  works  of  the  author.  These 
were  followed  by  PfafTs  edition  of  the  Bible,  Tubingen,  1729  ; 
Wolfii  Curse  Philologicae  et  Oriticae,  Hamburg,  1738,  4  vols.  4to ; 
Heumann's  Erkliirung  des  N.  T.,  Hanover,  1750,  12  vols.  8vo  ; 
Moldenhauer's  Erkliirung  der  Schriften  des  N.  T.,  Leipzig,  1763,  4 
vols.  4to  ;  J.  D.  Michaelis'  Uebersetzung  des  N.  T.  mit  Anmer- 
kungen,  Gottingen,  1789,  3  vols.  4to ;  Bengelii  Gnomon  N.  T., 
TubingaB,  1773,  4to  ;  J.  G.  Kosenmiilleri  Scholia  in  N.  T.,  Norim- 
bergaB,  1777,  5  vols.  8vo.  (The  last  edition  [the  sixth]  appeared  in 
1825).  Henneberg  planned  a  complete  commentary  on  the  New 
Testament ;  but  only  the  first  volume,  containing  Matthew,  ap- 


160  INTRODUCTION. 

peared,  Gotta  and  Erfurt,  1829.  The  author  died  in  1831.  H.  A. 
W.  Meyer  has  prepared  a  commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  De 
Wette  has  also  published  an  exposition  of  the  New  Testament. 
Among  the  general  works  on  the  New  Testament,  we  must  also 
reckon  the  well-known  Observationen-Sammlungen,  by  Eaphelius, 
(out  of  Xenophon,  Hamb.  1720  ;  out  of  Polybius  and  Arrian, 
Hamb.  1715  ;  out  of  Herodotus,  Liirieb.  1731),  Albert!  (Leiden, 
1725),  Kypke  (Breslau,  1725),  Eisner  (Utrecht,  1728),  Palairet 
(Leiden,  1752). 

As  regards  the  Gospel-collection^  the  expositions  of  Theophylact 
and  Euthymius  Zigabenus  have  come  down  to  us.  The  ancient  ex- 
position which  Theophilus  of  Antioch  is  said  to  have  composed  on 
the  four  Gospels,  is  lost.  Of  the  time  of  the  Eeformatiou,  Mart. 
Chemnitzii  Harmonia  Quatuor  Evangeliorum,  continued  by  Poly- 
carpus  Lyser  and  Johann  Gerhard  (Hamb.  1704,  3  vols.  fol.),  is 
particularly  distinguished.  Clericus  also  composed  a  similar  har- 
mony (Amsterd.  1669,  fol).  Of  more  recent  times,  the  following 
include  all  the  four  Gospels  :  Kocheri  Analecta  (Altenb.  1766, 4to), 
which  are  supplementary  to  Wolfs  Curas ;  J.  F.  G.  Schulz,  Anmer- 
kungen  iiber  die  vier  Evangelien,  Halle,  1794,  4to ;  Ch.  Th.  Kui- 
noel  Commentarius  in  Libros  N.  T.  Historicus,  Lips.  1807,  4  vols. 
8vo  (including  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles);  Paulus,  philologisch- 
kritischer  Commentar  iiber  das  N.  T.,  Ltibeck,  1800-1808,  5  vols.; 
also  his  Exegetisches  Handbiich  iiber  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien, 
Heidelberg,  1830,  1831,  2  vols. ;  Fritzsche,  evangelia  quatuor  cum 
Notis,  Lips.  1825,  1830,  8vo.  The  first  volume  comprises  Matthew, 
the  second  Mark. 

Lastly  as  regards  the  single  Gospels.  Among  the  fathers  we 
possess  fragments  of  a  commentary  on  Matthew  by  Origen.  Chry- 
sostom  wrote  ninety-one  homilies  on  the  Gospel  by  Matthew.  Pos- 
sin  published  a  catena  on  this  Evangelist,  Tolosae,  1646.  In  later 
times  Salomo  van  Till,  Frankf.,  1708,  and  Jac.  Eisner,  Zwoll.,  1769. 
4to,  wrote  upon  Matthew.  Also,  Gotz,  Erklarung  des  Matthaus  aus 
dem  Griechisch-Hebraischen  und  dem  Hebraischen,  Stuttgardt,  1785, 
8vo  ;  Heddaus,  Erklarung  des  Matthaus,  Stuttgardt  and  Tubingen, 
1792,  2  vols  ;  Der  Bericht  des  Matthaus  von  Jesus  dem  Messias,  by 
Bolten,  Altona,  1792,  8vo  ;  Kleuker's  Biblische  Sympathien,  Schles- 
wig,  1820  ;  Das  Evangelium  Matthai,  erklart  von  Gratz  (of  Bonn), 
Tubingen,  1821,  2  vols.  8vo  ;  Pires,  Commentarius  in  Evangelium 
Mattheei,  Mogunt.,  1825.  Of  special  value  is  Tholuck's  "  Philolo- 
gisch-theologische  Auslegung  der  Bergpredigt  Christ!  nach  Mat- 
thaeus"  (Philological  and  Theol.  Com.  on  Christ's  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  as  contained  in  Matthew.)  Hamburg,  1833. 

*  For  the  complete  literature  of  the  Gospel  harmonies,  see  Hase's  Leben  Jesu,  & 


INTRODUCTION.  161 

On  the  Gospel  by  Mark  we  have,  likewise  a  catena  edited  by 
Possin,  Home,  1673.  Jac.  Eisner  wrote  a  commentary  upon  Mark, 
Utrecht,  1773  ;  and  Bolten  also,  Altona,  1795,  8vo  ;  Matthai  pub- 
lished an  Exposition  of  Mark,  by  Victor,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch, 
and  other  Greek  fathers,  Moscow,  1775,  2  vols.  8vO. 

Lastly,  in  reference  to  Luke,  we  have  a  catena  on  it  by  Corde- 
rius,  Antwerpen,  1628.  This  Gospel  was  separately  commented  on 
by  Pape,  Bremen,  1777, 1781,  2  vols.  8vo ;  by  Bolten,  Altona,  1796, 
8vo.  We  have  also  Moras,  Preelections  in  Lucae  Evangelmm,  pub- 
lished by  0.  A.  Donat.  Leips.  1795,  8vo.  The  latest  works  on 
Luke,  are  Scholia  in  Lucam  scripsit  Bornemann,  Lips.,  1830  ;  and 
Stem's  Commentar  tiber  den  Lucas.  Halle,  1830. 

VOL.  L— 11 


SYNOPTICAL  EXPOSITION 


OP  THE 


FIRST   THREE    GOSPELS. 


FIRST    PAET. 
OF  THE  BIRTH  AND  CHILDHOOD  OF  JESUS  CHRIST, 


FIRST  SECTION.— MATTHEW'S  ACCOUNT. 

CHAPTERS  I.   AND  II. 


§  1.  GENEALOGY  OF  JESUS. 

(Matth.  L  1-17  ;  Luke  iii.  23-38.) 

WHILE  Mark  at  once,  in  the  title  of  his  Gospel  (Mark  i.  1),  de- 
scribes Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  Matthew  represents  him  as  the 
Son  of  Man,  since  he  first  characterizes  him  as  the  promised  de- 
scendant of  the  two  great  heads  of  the  Old  Testament  economy  — 
Abraham  and  David  —  and  then  introduces  his  entire  genealogy. 
The  character  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  as  the  doyttmKov,  corporeal,  in 
the  nobler  sense  of  the  word,  and  its  special  adaptation  to  Jewish 
Christians,  show  themselves,  in  this  form  of  beginning,  too  plainly 
to  be  mistaken.  Since  Jesus  is  introduced  as  vlb$  'Aj3padfj,,  Son  of 
Abraham,  he  appears  as  the  descendant  of  him  whose  family  is 
blessed  among  the  families  of  mankind  ;  but,  as  Son  of  David,  he 
was  more  definitely  assigned  to  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic  race  — 
viz.,  the  family  of  him  who,  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  described 
as  the  representative  of  the  future  head  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Both  expressions,  therefore,  point  out  Jesus  as  the  promised  Mes- 
siah. Yet  this  is  still  more  definitely  expressed  in  the  name  'Iqaovg 
Xpiarog,  Jesus  Christ.  'tyoovg,  *  Jesus,  as  the  proper  name  of  the 
individual,  refers  immediately  to  the  Saviour  only  as  a  historical 


*  TheLXX.  use  'Irjaovc  for  yoirn  or  yno^  which  latter  form  is  first  found  in  writings, 
after  the  time  of  the  captivity.  The  name  marks  our  Lord's  spiritual  character,  and 
was  given  to  him  by  divine  command  (Matth.  i.  21),  to  intimate  his  exalted  calling.  Just 
so  the  Old  Testament  names,  Abraham,  Israel,  &c.,  denote  the  spiritual  character  which 
those  persons  were  called  to  exhibit  amongst  mankind. 


166  MATTHEW  I.  1. 

personage  ;  Xpiarog,  Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  official  name 
for  the  expected  deliverer  of  Israel.  It  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew 
>T«»»,  Anointed,  which  word  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  some- 
times of  kings  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  6,  10 ;  xxvi.  16,  and  elsewhere)  ; 
sometimes  of  high-priests  (Lev.  iv.  3,  5,  16,  and  elsewhere) ;  some- 
times of  prophets  (Psalm  cv.  15)  ;  because  all  these  persons  were 
consecrated  to  their  office  by  the  symbolical  rite  of  anointing  (on 
the  anointing  of  prophets  see  1  Kings  xix.  16),  to  intimate,  that 
.  for  the  due  discharge  of  their  office,  they  must  be  endowed  with 
spiritual  powers.  But  the  expression  is  rarely  used  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament of  the  royal  prophet  and  high-priest  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
(Psalm  ii.  2 ;  Daniel  ix.  25.)  From  these  passages,  with  which 
others  were  connected,  in  which  the  anointing  was  viewed  spiritu- 
ally (comp.  Is.  Ixi.  1,  with  Luke  iv.  18),  arose  the  name  Xpitrrof, 
which,  even  at  the  time  of  Christ,  had  become  the  prevailing  official 
designation  of  the  great  desired  one.  In  this  view,  the  name 
"  Christ"  expresses  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in 
the  person  of  the  Saviour,  since  the  humanity  is  the  anointed — the 
endowed ;  the  divine  power  is  the  anointing — the  endowing. 
Originally  the  Saviour  was  called  either  6  'Irjaovg,  with  reference  to 
his  historical  individuality,  or  6  Xpiorog,  with  reference  to  his  dig- 
nity; also,  'Irjoovg  6  teyofievog  XQIOTOS  (Matth.  i.  16,  on  which  consult 
the  commentary).  It  was  only  at  a  later  period  that  the  two  terms 
were  united  into  the  collective  appellation  'Iqoovg  Xpiorog,  Jesus 
Christ. 

The  first  verse  in  Matthew  does  not,  perhaps,  form  merely 
a  superscription  for  the  subsequent  genealogy.  Bij3Xo$  yeveoeb)? 
(=ninV'iFi  IBS  G-en.  v.  1)  means  primarily,  "book  of  the  descent," 
"genealogy,"  and  forms  in  the  Old  Testament  the  general  super- 
scription to  the  genealogy  in  question,  and  to  the  accompanying 
biographical  sketches  by  which  it  is  carried  out  and  illustrated. 
Matthew  has  doubtless  employed  the  expression  here  in  a  similar 
manner.  His  Gospel  is  the  exposition  of  the  genealogy  ;  the  proof 
that  Jesus  was  the  promised  seed  of  Abraham  and  son  of  David. 
The  genealogy  in  Matthew,  compared  with .  that  of  Luke,  shows 
plainly  the  different  character  of  the  two  Gospels.  While  Matthew 
begins  with  Abraham,  the  ancestral  father  of  the  Jewish  people, 
Luke  ascends  to  Adam,  the  first  father  of  the  whole  human  race — 
heathen  as  well  as  Jews — and  thus  connects  the  Saviour  with  human 
nature  as  such,  apart  from  all  national  individuality.  But  in  the 
particulars  we  find  that,  from  David  downwards,  the  two  genealogies 
vary.  Matthew  traces  the  line  of  descent  through  Solomon,  Luke 
through  another  son  of  David — Nathan.  Two  names  only — Sa- 
lathiel  and  Zorobabel  (see  Luke  iii.  27,  compared  with  Matth.  i.  12) 
— are  the  same  in  both,  the  rest  being  entirely  different  ;  but  these 


MATTHEW  I.  1.  167 

persons  must  be  regarded  as  living  at  different  times,  since  in 
Matthew  nine  persons  are  enumerated  "between  them  and  Jesus,  and 
in  Luke  eighteen.*  The  difficulty  arising  from  the  fact  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  give  quite  different  genealogies  of  Jesus,  was 
the  subject  of  learned  investigations,  even  in  the  earliest  times  of 
the  church ;  Julius  Africanus,  in  particular,  gave  his  attention  to 
it  (Euseb.  H.  E.  i.  7.)  Three  hypotheses  f  for  the  solution  of  this 
difficulty  have  been  framed  with  great  acuteness  :  1.  The  sup- 
position of  a  levirate  marriage  (Deut.  xxv.  6)  ;  in  which  case,  how- 
ever, to  explain  all,  we  must  farther  suppose,  that  the  two  brothers, 
who  had  successively  the  same  wife,  were  not  properly  brothers,  but 
step-brothers,  sons  of  the  same  mother  by  different  fathers  ;  be- 
cause, if  they  had  been  by  one  father,  the  genealogy  would  have 
been  the  same.  This  hypothesis  was  first  propounded  by  Julius 
Africanus  (ut  supra).  Agreeably  to  it,  the  descent  would  be  as 
follows  : 

David 


Solomon  Nathan 

Matthan  MelchiJ 

JL,  JL 

Jacob  Eli. 

I 

Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary. 

This  hypothesis  explains  the  difference  ;  yet,  in  the  first  place, 
the  supposition  that  Jacob  and  Eli  had  the  same  wife,  one  after  the 
other,  and  were,  moreover,  step-brothers,  is  somewhat  harsh  ;  fur- 
ther, it  cannot  be  demonstrated  with  certainty  that  it  was  the  prac- 
tice to  take  the  name  of  the  real  father  in  the  case  of  obligatory 
marriages  ;  and  lastly,  both  genealogies  would  be  those  of  Joseph, 
which  appears  unsuitable  on  this  account,  that  Jesus,  according  to 
the  flesh,  was  descended  from  David  and  Abraham,  not  through 
Joseph,  but  through  Mary.  That  step-brothers,  and  still  more  dis- 
tant relations,  were  also  bound  to  fulfil  the  levirate  marriage,  is 

*  Luke  has,  on  the  other  side,  also  between  David  and  Salathiel  twenty  members ; 
Matthew  only  fourteen. — [E. 

f  Other  attempts  at  explaining  this  difficulty  are  to  be  found  in  Wolf's  Curse,  and 
Kocher's  Analecta,  but  they  are  futile.  Consult  also  Surerihusius1  ftifihoc;  /cara/l/layj/f, 
page  322,  seqq. 

%  Julius  Africanus  omits  Matthan  and  Levi,  and  appears,  therefore,  to  have  had  an- 
other reading  before  him,  or  to  have  transposed  the  names.  The  name,  however,  makes 
no  difference  in  the  hypothesis. 


168  MATTHEW  I.  1. 

shewn  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of 
Moses  (Smith's  translation).  2.  The  assumption  that  Mary  was 
an  heiress  (IniK.krjpog,')  in  which  case  she  would  be  obliged  to  marry 
within  her  own  tribe.  (Numb,  xxxvi.  5-8).  The  husband  of  an 
heiress  was  at  the  same  time  obliged  to  enter  himself  in  the  family 
of  his  wife,  and  so  came  to  have  as  it  were  two  fathers.  In  this  way 
one  of  the  genealogies  would  indeed  be  that  of  Mary  ;  but  the  latter 
circumstance — viz.,  the  being  received  into  the  wife's  family,  and 
the  taking  the  name  of  the  father-in-law  on  the  part  of  those  who 
married  heiresses,  which  in  this  case  is  all-important,  is  precisely 
what  is  uncertain  ;  at  least  Nehemiah  vii.  63  is  not  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish it.*  This  hypothesis,  however,  though  it  does  not  suffice  for 
solving  the  difficulty,  is  very  suitable  for  explaining  Mary's  journey 
to  Bethlehem.  (Luke  ii.  4.)  In  general  it  seems  well  suited  to  the 
course  of  development  in  David's  family,  that  that  line  of  it  from 
which  the  Messiah  was  to  proceed,  should  close  with  an  heiress,  who 
ended  it  in  giving  birth  to  the  promised  everlasting  heir  of  the 
throne  of  David.  We  may,  therefore,  combine  the  opinion,  that 
Mary  was  an  heiress,  with  (3)  the  third  hypothesis,  according  to 
which  the  genealogy  of  Mary  is  given  by  Luke,  that  of  Joseph  by 
Matthew.  Thus  Jesus  is  shewn,  as  well  on  the  father's  as  the 
mother's  side,  to  be  of  the  house  of  David.  On  the  mother's  side 
the  descent  had  a  real  significance,  on  the  father's  an  ostensible  one. 
For,  as  Jesus  passed  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  for  the  son  of  Joseph 
(see  note  on  Matth.  xiii.  55),  the  Jews  acknowledged  him  in  this 
relation  also  as  of  the  house  of  David  ;  and  on  this  account  not  a 
doubt  of  his  descent  from  David  is  ever  uttered  by  his  enemies. 
Agreeably  to  this  hypothesis,  Eli  (Luke  iii.  23)  would  be  the  father 
of  Mary  (with  which  the  Jewish  tradition  coincides,  see  Lightfoot, 
ad  loc.)  ;  and  when  Joseph  is  called  his  son,  "  son"  (vloc^  is  here  to 
be  taken  in  the  sense  of  "  son-in-law,"  as  Kuth  1.  11,  12,  and  else- 
where. Genealogical  tables  are,  indeed,  unusual  in  the  case  of  wo- 
men, but  for  heiresses  they  must  necessarily  exist ;  and  at  all  events 
the  father  of  Mary  had  assuredly  his  genealogy.  The  actual  descent 
of  Jesus  from  David  through  Mary,  is,  moreover,  by  no  means  to  be 
regarded  as  a  merely  external  fact,  intended  to  fulfil  the  prophecies. 
The  prophecy  itself  that  the  Messiah  should  descend  from  Abraham 
and  David,  is  rather  to  be  viewed  as  having  a  deeper  origin.  The 
appearance  of  the  Messiah  among  mankind,  presupposes  condi- 
tions and  preparations  ;  and  these  not  merely  negative,  inas- 
much as  their  need  of  salvation  had  to  be  awakened  in  the  minds 
of  men,  but  positive,  in  so  far  as  the  Messiah,  the  bloom  and  flower 
of  humanity,  must  stand  in  relation  to  the  root  from  which  he 
sprang.  We  must  look  upon  the  incarnation  of  Christ  as  a  fact,  for 
*  See  /.  D.  Mickaelis1  Commentarie?  on  the  Laws  of  Moses  (Smith's  translation). 


MATTHEW  I.  2,  3.  169 

which  preparation  was  made,  by  a  vein  of  nobler  life  flowing  through 
the  whole  line  of  our  Lord's  ancestors.  The  virgin  chosen  to  be  the 
mother  of  the  Messiah  could  not  spring  suddenly  from  the  bosom 
of  a  sinful  race.  Although  not  without  sin,  she  was  the  purest 
of  that  race.  And  that  she  was  such,  was  in  consequence  of 
her  election  by  grace — her  being  born  of  the  holiest  family  of  man- 
kind. As  in  the  development  of  the  human  race  we  observe  certain 
iamilies  growing  in  sin  and  wickedness,  so  we  find  families,  also,  in 
Trhich  the  noblest  germs  of  life  are  possessed  and  cherished  from 
generation  to  generation.  Of  course,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that 
families  which  have  been,  through  grace,  specially  shielded  from  the 
corruption  of  sin,  had  no  need  of  salvation ; — (this  is  to  be  view- 
ed as  absolutely  and  equally  necessary  for  all  men) — but  as  more 
ready  to  receive  salvation,  since,  as  being  of  the  truth,  they  more 
certainly  hear  God's  call. 

In  the  following  enumeration  of  the  links  of  the  genealogy,  Mat- 
thew omits  several,  e.  g.,  ver.  8,  between  Joram  and  Josias.  (See  1 
Chron.  iii.  11 ;  2  Chron.  xxi.  17.)  Luke,  on  the  contrary,  inserts 
Cainau  in  iii.  36,  whom  the  Hebrew  text  does  not  mention.  Doubt- 
less, this  name  is  derived  from  the  LXX.,  which  Luke,  as  a  Hellen- 
ist, used  for  the  most  part.  The  LXX.  translators  may  have  received 
it  from  tradition.  (Respecting  such  variations  of  the  LXX.  from 
the  original  Hebrew,  as  have  been  admitted  into  the  New  Test- 
ament, see  the  remarks  on  Luke  iv.  18.) 

Ver.  2. — Throughout  the  whole  genealogical  table,  Luke  appears 
in  the  character  of  a  relater  merely,  while  Matthew  adds  reflections  ; 
he  divides  the  list  into  classes,  and  adds  special  observations. 
Of  Judah  he  remarks  that  he  had  brothers  ;  probably  because  the 
patriarchs  of  Israel — the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob — appeared  to  call  for 
special  notice.  The  same  remark  is  made  of  Jechonias  (ver.  11)  ;  in 
which  passage,  however,  the  term  d&A0ot,  brethren,  must  be  taken 
in  a  wider  sense,  like  MN  (Gen.  xiii.  8)  of  father's  brothers,  as  Je- 
chonias had  no  actual  brothers.  (1  Chron.  iii.  15,  16.) 

Ver.  3. — It  is  also  peculiar  to  the  genealogy  in  Matthew,  that  it 
several  times  mentions  women — a  circumstance  which  did  occur  in 
Jewish  genealogies,  if  any  thing  remarkable  gave  them  special  in- 
terest. (See  Surenhusii,  f3i(3k.  Kara/U.  p.  110.)  Tamar  (Gen. 
.xxxviii.),  Rahab  (Josh,  ii.),  Ruth,  Bathsheba,  are  named  by  Matthew. 
Tamar,  Rahab,*  and  Bathsheba,  are  liable  to  objection  on  account 
of  their  conduct ;  Ruth,  as  a  heathen  (Moabitess).  That  they  were 
nevertheless  counted  worthy  to  be  among  the  ancestors  of  the  Mes- 

*  Whether  it  is  Rahab  the  harlot,  that  is  meant,  might  seem  uncertain,  because  of  the 
chronology ;  she  comes  too  near  to  Obed  and  Jesse,  David's  ancestors ;  yet  the  expres- 
sion ;}  'Pa^-u/3  (with  the  article)  plainly  points  to  the  well-known  Rahab  mentioned  in 
Josh.  ii.  Perhaps  Matthew  has  omitted  some  links. 


170  MATTHEW  I.  6, 16,  17. 

siah,  must  have  imparted  to  them  a  very  special  and  peculiar  signi- 
ficance. Matthew  makes  this  circumstance  still  more  prominent  by 
the  designation  in  7775-  rov  Qvyiov,  from  her  who  had  belonged  to 
Uriah,  in  order  to  point  to  the  wondrous  dealings  of  God's  grace  in 
arranging  the  Messiah's  lineage.  As  examples  of  the  election  of 
grace,  of  renovation  by  faith  and  repentance,  and  of  being  received 
out  of  heathen  families  among  the  people  of  God,  the  persons  named 
are  noticed  even  by  the  Eabbins.  (See  Wetstein's  New  Test.,  on 
ver.  3  compared  with  Heb.  xi.  31.)  But  for  Matthew's  intention  to 
point  out  these  leadings  of  the  divine  hand  he  would  have  mentioned 
in  preference  the  celebrated  names  of  Sarah,  Kebecca,  Leah,  in  the 
genealogy  of  the  Messiah. 

Ver.  6. — David,  as  a  principal  person,  as  it  were  a  knot  in  the 
genealogical  tree  of  the  Messiah,  is  called  emphatically  6  (3aoiXev$, 
the  king,  as  the  type  of  the  Messianic  king  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  24,  and 
elsewhere).  A  similar  break  is  made  afterwards  (ver.  11),  by  the 
fj^ToiKeoia  Bafivk&vos,  removal  to  Babylon,  =  alxfiaJMoia,  captivity. 
The  LXX.  use  neroiKevia  for  mVa  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  21). 

Ver.  16. — The  term  dvrip,  man,  husband,  in  this  verse,  answers 
to  sponsus  (v.  19);  according  to  the  Jewish  law,  the  bridegroom 
was  already  regarded  as  the  possessor  of  the  bride.  (Gen.  xxix.  21 ; 
Deut.  xxii.  23,  24.)  Matthew  expresses  himself  very  carefully  ;  £j 
fa  tyewrjOT]  'Irjaovg,  from  whom  was  born  Jesus,  in  order  to  mark 
the  supernatural  character  of  the  generation  of  Christ ;  yevvdv  is 
used  as  equivalent  to  TIKTSIV  (Luke  i.  13).  In  the  phrase  'Itjows  6 
^yofj^vog  Xpioros,  Jesus  who  is  called  Christ,  Xpiorog  appears  evi- 
dently as  the  official  name.  With  the  exception  of  this  phrase, 
Matthew  almost  always  uses  6  'Irjoovg,  or  6  Xpiorog.  It  was  only 
gradually  that,  in  the  usage  of  the  church,  the  name  expressive  of 
the  human  character  of  the  Saviour  grew  up  into  so  close  a  con- 
nexion with  his  official  name,  that  the  two  have  formed  a  whole,  as 
is  particularly  the  case  in  the  Apostle  Paul's  writings.  (See  Gers- 
dorf's  Beitrage  zur  Sprachcharacteristik,  S.  38,  ff.,  272,  ff.)  The 
teyeodai,  in  the  phrase  under  remark,  like  Katelodai  —  N^S  (on  which 
see  comment,  on  Luke  i.  32),  has,  in  this  place,  the  pregnant  mean- 
ing, "  to  be  called,  and  really  to  be."  In  the  opposite  sense,  "  to 
be  called,  without  being."  the  expression  occurs  in  Ephes.  ii.  11, 
and  Matth.  xxvii.  17.  It  has  frequently  no  emphasis,  either  the 
one  way  or  the  other,  as  in  Matth.  xxvi.  14,  Mark  xv.  7. 

Ver.  17 — Matthew  closes  his  genealogical  account  with  a  review 
of  the  different  divisions  which  may  be  made  in  the  generations 
from  Abraham  to  Christ.  He  notices  three  of  fourteen  gen- 
erations each,*  which  may,  however,  be  reckoned  in  more  than  one 

*  Whether  the  number  fourteen  has  a  reference  to  the  name  David,  the  Hebrew  let- 
ters of  which,  reckoned  according  to  the  Jewish  custom,  make  up  the  number  fourteen, 


MATTHEW  I.  17.  171 

way.  That  reckoning  appears  the  most  convenient,  according  to 
which  David  and  Josiah  are  reckoned  twice,*  (at  the  close  of  one 
and  the  beginning  of  another  division),  and  Jesus  omitted.  If  the 
person  of  Jesus  is  to  be  reckoned  as  forming  the  close  of  the  third 
division,  David  only  ought  to  be  reckoned  twice.  The  former  plan 
appears  to  me,  however,  preferable.  It  is  fitting  not  to  include 
Jesus  himself  in  the  generations,  as  we  ordinarily  refrain  from 
doing  in  reckoning  a  person's  ancestry.  Besides,  since  Matthew,  as 
was  remarked,  has  omitted  some  links,  it  cannot  be  his  inten- 
tion to  lay  stress  on  the  number  fourteen,  nor  ought  this  arrange- 
ment to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  help  for  the  memory.  Kather 
it  is  his  purpose,  by  means  of  the  equal  number,  to  point  out 
the  inward  symmetry  and  regularity  of  the  historical  development.f 
As  the  whole  history  of  the  world  moves  forward  in  its  development 
by  measured  periods,  and  as,  in  general,  every  greater  or  lesser 
whole,  in  the  wide  creation  of  Grod,  has  its  inward  gradations  ot 
progress,  through  which  it  advances  to  its  completion,  so  there  is  a 
regularity  in  the  development  of  that  family  also,  as  it  were  the  in- 
most life-pulse  of  mankind,  from  which  the  Messial\  was  to  come. 
Bengel  recognized  correctly  this  fundamental  view  (in  his  Gnomon 
on  the  passage)  ;  but  the  particulars  which  he  adds,  as  well  as  his 
whole  chronological  system,  which  he  brings  into  connexion  with  it, 
appear  to  me  untenable.  (Compare  further  remarks  on  this  sub- 
ject in  the  Commentary  on  the  Kevelation  of  John.) 

We  must  notice  too  the  extraordinary  phenomenon  of  a  fam- 
ily table  of  three  times  fourteen  generations,  and  seventy-five  an- 
cestors extending  through  2000  or  4000  years,  with  which  the  Evan- 
gelists open  the  life  of  Christ.  The  possibility  of  exhibiting  such  a 
genealogical  table,  always  proceeding  in  the  directest  line  of  descent 
from  father  to  son,  and  that,  too,  of  a  family  long  living  in  the 
deepest  obscurity,  would  be  inexplicable  (since  'even  the  distin- 

it  might  be  difficult  to  decide.  Such  a  supposition  might,  however,  agree  well  enough 
with  the  complexion  of  Matthew's  whole  description.  The  number  fourteen  is  moreover 
to  be  regarded  as  twice  seven — a  number  which  the  Scriptures  treat  as  a  sacred  one. 
The  three  times  fourteen  thus  become  six  times  seven,  and  the  seventh  seven  opens  with 
the  person  of  Christ. 

*  Similar  modes  of  reckoning  are  met  with  in  other  cases.  A  simple  Nazarite  vow 
lasted  thirty  days,  a  double  one  not  sixty  but  only  fifty-nine  days,  because  the  day  in  the 
middle  was  reckoned  twice.  The  Germans  call  a  week  eight  days,  "acht  Tage,"  but  two 
weeks,  fourteen  days,  "  vierzehn  Tage ;"  while  the  French  call  two  weeks,  "  quinze 
jours." 

•  f  The  omission  of  some  links  may  be  ascribed  to  the  authors  of  the  genealogy  in 
Joseph's  family.  Matthew  took  it  as  he  found  it,  without  making  any  alteration  in  it, 
and,  of  course,  his  remarks  upon  it  could  only  apply  to  its  existing  form.  The  want  of 
some  of  the  links  can  have  no  influence  on  the  truth  of  the  remarks  themselves,  inas- 
much as  the  fundamental  thought,  that  all  things  unfold  themselves  in  God's  world  by 
measure  and  number,  applies  no  less  to  the  complete  genealogy  than  to  the  shortened 
one. 


172  MATTHEW  I.  17, 18. 

guished  families,  whose  genealogies  attract  the  eyes  of  millions, 
cannot  trace  their  pedigree  a  thousand  years,  and  none  of  them, 
in  a  direct  line),  unless  there  had  been  constantly  given  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  line  a  clue  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  trace  them- 
selves out  in  the  multitude  of  families,  into  which  each  stock  and 
branch  was  subdivided,  in  order  to  hold  fast  that  member  which  was 
destined  to  continue  the  succession.  This  clue  was  the  hope,  that 
the  Messiah  would  be  born  in  the  family  of  Abraham  and  David. 
The  desire  of  beholding  him,  and  of  participating  in  his  grace  and 
glory,  suffered  not  the  attention  to  weary  through  a  thousand  years."* 
By  divine  arrangement  also,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  member  that 
continued  the  succession  might  become  doubtful,  it  was  again  plainly 
marked  out ;  so  that  the  hope  of  the  final  fulfilment  was  anew 
excited  and  maintained  in  activity  up  to  its  realization.  An  excel- 
lent view  of  the  miraculous  element  discoverable  in  the  construction 
of  these  genealogies,  is  given  by  Koppen  in  his  book :  Die  Bibel  ein 
Werk  der  gottlichen  Weisheit  (Leipzig,  1798,  2  vols.  8vo.,  compare 
B.  ii.,  S.  199,  ff.); — a  new  edition  of  this  work  is  being  prepared  by 
Scheibel. 


§  2.  THE  BIETH  OF  JESTJS. 

(Matth.  i.  18-25.) 

Matthew's  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  characterized  by  the 
greatest  simplicity  and  brevity.  It  contains  not  a  single  chronolog- 
ical or  topographical  reference.  It  assumes  that  the  persons  are, 
in  general,  already  known  to  the  readers.  It  barely  sets  forth  in 
sober  narrative,  without  embellishment,  the  great  fact  of  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Jesus,  points  to  the  fulfilment  therein  of 
Old  Testament  prediction  ;  and,  finally,  recounts  the  providential 
guidance  of  Joseph,  in  this  wondrous  event.  We  readily  pass 
by  the  want  of  circumstantial  vividness,  which  this  part  of  Mat- 
thew's narrative,  in  common  with  his  whole  Gospel,  discovers,  for 
the  sake  of  that  sober  air  of  genuine  historical  narration,  which  is 
prominent  thoughout  ;  a  feature  which  his  poetical  effusions  render 
less  apparent  in  the  narrative  of  Luke.  Those  scholars,  therefore, 
are  in  error,  who,  while  opposed  to  the  general  application  of  the 
mythical  interpretation  to  the  history  of  Jesus,  have  yet  thought  it 
necessary  to  admit  a  mythical  element  in  the  history  of  his  birth 
and  childhood.  Here,  in  fact,  the  supposition  appears  most 
strikingly  inadmissible,  since,  if  the  events  did  not  take  place 

*  That  the  Jews  of  later  time  also  bestowed  great  care  upon  their  family  registers,  is 
shown  by  Julius  Africanus,  as  quoted  by  Euseb.  i.  7.  Herod  had  them  all  sought  out  and 
burnt,  so  that  no  one  should  be  able  to  prove  that  his  family  was  more  ancient  than  the 
king's. 


MATTHEW  I.  18.  173 

just  as  the  Evangelists  record  them,  gross  conceptions  about  the 
origin  of  Jesus  obtrude  themselves  upon  us.  For  as  Christ  is 
undeniably  a  historical  person,  and  must  therefore  have  been 
begotten  and  born,  to  affirm  the  mythical  character  of  the  Gos- 
pel-history, can  only  favour  a  view  that  is  destructive  of  the 
notion  of  a  Saviour — viz.,  that  Jesus  came  into  existence  in  an 
impure  manner,  since  Mary  was  unmarried  at  the  time  of  his  con- 
ception. The  alternative  resorted  to  that  Jesus  might  have  sprung 
from  the  marriage  of  Mary  and  Joseph,  is  self-refuted  by  its  unhis- 
torical  character  ;  for  if  the  circumstance,  that  Mary  was  with  child 
before  her  marriage,  is  to  be  reckoned  among  the  myths,  the  cir- 
cumstances that  she  gave  birth  to  Jesus,  and  even  that  Jesus  lived 
at  all,  may  equally  well  be  reckoned  among  them. 

Besides,  it  appears,  on  closer  consideration,  that  what  apparently 
most  recommends  the  mythical  interpretation1  of  the  history  of  the 
childhood  of  Jesus,  is  rather  unfavourable  to  it.  This  holds  good 
particularly  of  the  appeal  that  is  made  to  the  traditions  of  the  birth 
of  great  men  from  pure  virgins  (TrapdEvoyeveig),  as  of  Buddha, 
Zoroaster,  Plato,  and  others.  Such  traditions  are  no  more  op- 
posed to  the  Bible  history,  than  are  analogous  longings  for  an 
expected  deliverer.  They  rather  attest  the  thoroughly  correct 
feeling  of  the  noblest  men  among  different  nations,  that,  in  the  way 
of  natural  generation,  and  thus  from  the  bosom  of  humanity  alone, 
nothing  can  proceed  answering  to  the  ideal  existing  in  the  human 
spirit.  They  witness  to  the  general  longing  and  desire  for  such  a 
fact — to  the  truth  of  it  in  some  one  historical  manifestation.  Now, 
as  we  have  so  sober  a  historical  account  of  the  supernatural  concep- 
tion of  Jesus  in  a  pure  virgin,  as  that  of  Matthew,  which  with 
even  studied  plainness  repels  every  fanciful  idea ;  and,  as  all 
the  phenomena  in  the  life  of  Jesus  confirm  the  opinion  of  his 
supernatural  birth,  since  there  is  realized  in  him,  that  ideal 
of  all  ideals,  which  could  never  proceed  from  sinful  humanity 
and  the  power  inherent  in  it ;  there  is  perfect  historical  foundation 
for  the  conviction,  that  this  general  longing  is  fulfilled  in  the  person 
of  Jesns.  In  addition  to  this,  the  narrative  of  the  generation  of 
Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  stands  in  necessary  connexion  with  his 
whole  destination  to  be  the  physician  and  the  Saviour  of  diseased 
humanity,  since  it  is  impossible  that  any  one  who  is  himself  descend- 
ed from  the  fallen  race  of  man  could  have  any  power  to  heal  the 
hurt  from  which  they  suffer.  It  was  necessary,  indeed,  that  he 
should  be  most  closely  united  with  men,  flesh  of  their  flesh,  bone  of 
their  bone  (Ephes.  v.  30),  yet,  at  the  same  time,  without  sin.  For 
this  reason,  he  was  not  begotten  by  any  man  from  sinful  seed, 
but  Mary,  touched  by  divine  fire  from  heaven,  received  into  her 
bosom  the  only  Begotten  of  the  Father  in  his  assumption  of 


174  MATTHEW  I.  18. 

humanity.  If,  then,  we  recognise  in  Christ  not  a  mere  mani- 
festation, however  exalted,  of  humanity,  but  an  actual  incarna- 
tion of  the  Word  of  Grod  (John  i.  1,  14),  then  the  narrative 
of  his  supernatural  generation,  so  far  from  astonishing  us,  seems 
for  the  Saviour  specially  natural  and  befitting.  A  Saviour  con- 
ceived in  sin — sprung  from  the  sinful  race  of  man,  is  a  self-con- 
tradictory notion ;  the  very  idea  of  a  Saviour  requires,  that  in  him 
there  should  be  manifested  something  higher,  something  heavenly, 
that  cannot  be  derived  from  what  exists  in  human  nature  itself.* 
But,  lastly,  the  mythical  view  of  the  history  of  Christ's  childhood 
must  be  seen  to  be  untenable  for  this  reason,  that  Mary,  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  lived  considerable  time  after  the  ascension.  Her  state- 
ments were  accessible  to  each  of  the  apostles — any  error  could 
immediately  have  been  set  aside  by  her  testimony. 

With  respect  to  the  appearances  of  angels,  the  mention  of  which 
in  Matthew's  narrative  might  be  regarded  as  the  most  important 
point  in  proof  of  its  mythical  character,  we  must,  in  interpreting, 
chiefly  keep  in  view,  that  the  historian  reports  as  facts  the  appear- 
ances of  angels  in  this,  as  well  as  in  other  places  of  his  Gospel.  En- 
tirely after  the  manner  of  the  Old  Testament,  Matthew  incorpor- 
ates angelic  appearances  into  his  records,  as  belonging  to  the  actual 
economy  of  human  affairs ;  without  giving  the  slightest  hint  that 
he  himself  regards  them  as  mythical  expressions  for  psychological 
processes  (mere  illusions  of  fancy,  the  creation  of  passing  cir- 
cumstances), or  as  in  any  other  way  different  from  what  they 
seem.  The  business  of  the  expositor  extends  beyond  the  ascer- 
taining of  the  author's  view  only  in  so  far  as  he  not  merely 
expounds,  but  also  vindicates  the  result  of  the  exposition ;  a 
duty  which,  in  the  present  position  of  science,  cannot  be  neglected. 
The  following  observations  may  suffice  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  present  case.  On  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  we  are  not  to 
conceive  of  the  angels  as  separated  from  men  by  an  impassable 
gulf;  but  on  the  contrary,  as  actively  employed  around  and  in 
men — especially  in  the  faithful.  (Heb.  i.  14.)  Usually,  how- 
ever, their  service  is  an  invisible  one.  The  possibility  of  their  be- 
coming visible  lies  in  the  nature  of  spirit  itself,  whose  indwelling 
energy  involves  a  capacity  of  making  itself  visible.  This  possibility, 
however,  according  to  Grod's  mode  of  dealing,  becomes  a  reality  only 
in  those  cases  where  it  subserves  men's  good — that  is,  for  the  pur- 

*  The  opinion  that  we  might  conceive,  that,  as  the  transfer  of  anything  sinful  from 
Mary  to  Jesus  was  prevented,  it  could  just  as  well  have  been  prevented  if  Joseph  had  been 
his  father  in  the  ordinary  way,  only  shifts  the  miracle  to  a  different  quarter,  without  get- 
ting rid  of  it.  If  we  actually  suppose  such  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  stay  the 
transfer  of  what  was  sinful  to  Jesus,  that  is  no  less  a  miracle  than  his  generation  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  wherefore  should  we  make  the  miracles  other  than  it  has  pleased  the 
Spirit  of  God  to  present  them  to  us  ? 


MATTHEW  I.  18.  175 

pose  of  instruction  and  guidance.  For  the  appearances  of  angels, 
like  other  orjfieta,  are  intended  to  give  to  man  the  assurance  of  his 
being  led  by  God,  to  save  him  from  his  tendencies  to  error.  In  this 
consists  their  importance  in  the  divine  economy  ;  but,  compared 
with  other  forms  of  divine  communication,  they  are  manifestly 
subordinate.  The  agency  of  angels  has  reference  principally  to  phy- 
sical existence.  They  are  the  living  supports  and  springs  of  motion 
to  the  world,  for  which  the  modern  mechanical  view  of  the  world 
has  substituted  what  are  called  powers  of  nature.  The  world 
of  morals  and  religion  is  the  scene  of  the  divine  Spirit's  agency. 
Comp.  Heb.  i.  7-9,  and  14.  On  this  principle  we  can  explain 
why  to  one,  an  angel  appears  (sometimes  in  a  dream,  some- 
tunes  waking),  and  to  another,  the  Lord.  Caprice  is  inconceivable 
in  the  case ;  the  different  forms  of  revelation  are  adapted  to 
the  condition  of  those  to  whom  they  are  granted.  Communica- 
tion by  dream  is  manifestly  the  lowest  grade  of  divine  revelation  ; 
it  is,  as  it  were,  one  that  takes  place  in  an  unconscious  state ; 
it  is  the  kind  made  to  Joseph,  who  discloses  in  the  Gospel 
narrative,  no  decidedly  spiritual  character.  From  the  appear- 
ances of  angels  seen  in  a  waking  state,  the  form  of  communi- 
cation rises  to  a  revelation  received  through  the  word  within,  which 
was  the  usual  form  of  receiving  the  higher  influences  in  the 
cases  of  Moses  and  all  the  prophets.  The  revelation  of  Jehovah 
himself,  or  of  the  Angel  /car'  efo^v,  appears  to  be  the  highest  grade, 
which  was  granted  only  to  the  princes  among  the  saints — an  Abra- 
ham, a  Jacob,  a  Moses,  and  a  Paul.  The  church  of  Christ  needs  no 
longer  angelic  appearances,  as  it  possesses  in  the  Holy  Ghost  given 
to  it  the  very  source  ot  all  truth.  The  form  in  which  angels 
appeared  (with  wings,  garments,  and  the  like)  should  be  regarded 
as  quite  accidental,  determined  solely  by  the  conditions  under  which 
the  phenomenon  happens  to  take  place.  Yet  in  him  who  sees 
the  angels,  the  unclosing  of  the  inward  eye  is  an  invariable 
pre-requisite.  Celestial  manifestations  cannot,  like  the  objects 
of  the  outward  world,  be  beheld  by  every  one  with  the  bodily 
eye.  Even  though  other  persons  are  present,  he  only  for  whom  the 
visitation  is  designed  sees  the  angel.  Thus  the  angels  were  as- 
cending and  descending  upon  Jesus  at  the  very  moment  that  he  was 
speaking  the  words  in  John  i.  51  to  the  apostles  ;  but  their  inward 
eye  was  still  closed  to  the  transactions  of  the  world  of  spirits.  Every 
appearance  of  angels,  accordingly,  should  be  conceived  not  merely  as 
an  outward  act,  but  also  as  an  inward  effect  in  the  subject  who  sees 
it.  (See  Numb.  xxii.  31.)  Lastly,  Christ,  the  Lord,  had  no  reve- 
lation,* but  was,  not  merely  a,  but  the  revelation  of  God  in  human 

*  It  is  in  appearance  only  that  such  passages  as  Luke  xxii.  43,  which  speaks  of  an 
angel  appearing  to  Christ  in  Gethsemane,  are  opposed  to  this  thought.     For  that  angel 


176  MATTHEW  I.  18, 19. 

nature  itself ;  on  him  the  angels  of  God  ascended  and  descended — 
i.  e.,  he  is  the  centre  and  the  medium  of  connexion  between  the  visi- 
ble and  the  invisible  world  ;  so  that  the  entire  reciprocal  action  of 
these  two  portions  of  existence  is  conducted  and  ordered  by  him. 
(See  note  on  John  i.  51). 

Ver.  18. — The  first  narrative  after  the  genealogy  is  introduced 
with  a  special  title,  in  which  'Iqoov  is,  in  all  probability,  a  spurious 
addition.  (See  Gersdorf,  ut  sup.  p.  39.)  Teveaig,  as  the  most  He- 
braizing reading,  (  =  n'nV'un),  is  preferable  to  yewijoi^.  Mapm,  also 
Mapmju,  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  crnw.  (Exod.  xv.  20 ;  Num.  xii.  1.) 
The  anxiety  of  the  Evangelist  to  represent  Mary  as  pure  and  inno- 
cent, cannot  fail  to  be  noticed.  In  addition  to  [i,vr]aTev6eior]g  yap  rr\^ 
jttT/rpof  avrov,  his  mother  being  betrothed,  he  says  expressly,  -rrptv  77 
ovvsWelv  avrovg,  before  they  came  together.  SvveWelv  (parallel 
with  7rapaAa(3m>,  ver.  20,  25)  denotes  living  and  dwelling  together  as 
husband  and  wife.  EvpioicKadai  is  not  used  absolutely  for  elvai,  any 
more  than  NSUS  is  so  used  ;  it  rather  expresses  "  being,"  with  the  ad- 
ditional idea  of  "  being  recognized  as  such."  (On  in  irvevfiarog  dyiov, 
see  note  on  Luke  i.  35.) 

Ver.  19. — Matthew's  account  leaves  the  impression,  that  Mary 
did  not  make  known  her  condition  to  Joseph.  (On  this  point,  see 
further  the  remarks  on  Luke  ii.  39.)  When  he  noticed  it  himself, 
he  sought  to  put  her  away  without  a  stir  (Aa0pa — i.  e.,  without  men- 
tioning the  cause  in  the  writing  of  divorcement).  'A.-noXveiv  denotes 
the  formal  dismissal  by  a  written  declaration.  (Deut.  xxiv.  1.)  Ac- 
cording to  Jewish  custom,  Joseph  treated  his  betrothed  just  as  his 
wife  ;*  but  showed  himself  to  be  diicaiog,  just,  upright.  This  term 
cannot  here,  as  in  Luke  i.  6,  signify  one  who  diligently  fulfils  the 
precepts  of  the  law  ;  for,  according  to  them,  he  ought  to  have  pre- 
ferred an  accusation  against  his  betrothed.  (Deut.  xxii.  23,  ff.)  But 
he  is  called  kind,  mild.  Chrysostom  :  ^PTJCTT*^,  £meiK?jg.  (Concern- 
ing the  significations  of  Siitaios  and  its  derivatives,  compare  the  re- 
marks on  Rom.  iii.  21.)  Hapadeiynari&iv,  to  make  a  Trapa&tyjwa,  ex- 
ample, contains  the  idea  of  Qaveptioai,  make  public,  but  with  the 
accessory  idea  of  disgrace.  (Heb.  vi.  6.)  Thus,  therefore,  the  fa- 
ther left  his  only-begotten  Son  and  his  mother,  just  as  he  does  his 
people  in  the  church,  to  pass  through  evil  and  through  good  report ! 
That  God  permitted  even  the  appearance  of  having  committed  sin 
to  rest  upon  Mary  (for  her  pregnancy  must,  in  any  case,  have  ap- 
peared premature),  must  be  regaided,  in  reference  to  Mary,  as  a  trial 

revealed  nothing  to  him,  but  was  concerned  only  with  his  physical  exhaustion ; — he  ap- 
peared to  him  merely  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  him  in  body. 

*  Maimonides  apud  Buxt.  de  divert,  pag.  76.  Femina  ex  quo  desponsata  est,  licet 
nondum  a  viro  cognita,  est  uxor  viri  et,  si  sponsus  earn  velit  repudiare,  oportet  ut  id  faciat 
libello  ropudiL 


! 


MATTHEW  I.  20,  21.  177 

intended  to  perfect  her  faith ;  but  in  reference  to  Christ,  as  an  ad- 
ditional trait  in  the  character  of  his  humiliation  :  he  had  to  appear 
as  sent  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh.  (Rom.  viii.  3.) 

Ver.  20. — That  this  purpose,  to  which  he  thought  himself  com- 
pelled, should  have  caused  a  great  commotion  in  Joseph's  soul,  may 
be  supposed  probable. '  But,  from  these  natural  processes  of 
mind,  and  from  any  dreams  or  illusions  of  fancy  which  they  may 
perhaps  have  produced,  there  is  distinguished  a  higher  influence, 
which  was  imparted  to  him  in  a  dream,  and  which  determined  him 
in  his  conduct  towards  Mary,  as  narrated  ver.  24,  25.  Nothing  in 
the  text  requires  us  to  assume,  in  this  angelic  visitation,  any  thing 
externally  visible ;  as  Joseph  saw  it  in  a  dream,  the  vision 
was  probably  internal.  The  same  God,  who  most  expressly  warns 
against  'false  dreams  (Jer.  xxiii.  32,  xxix.  8),  not  unfrequently 
directs  his  people  by  true  ones  (Numb.  xii.  6)  ;  since,  for  the  sin- 
cere, who  were  really  concerned  for  the  truth,  and  for  what  was 
well-pleasing  to  God,  he  discloses  infallible  criteria  by  which  to  dis- 
tinguish genuine  visions  from  false  ones.  Yet  as  these  are  modified 
by  individual  disposition,  they  can  be  reduced  to  no  objective  rules  ; 
all  divine  directions,  whether  by  dreams  or  any  other  communica- 
tions, are  dependent  upon  earnestness  and  sincerity  of  heart ;  the 
insincere  man  seeking  to  force,  as  it  were,  the  intimations  of  the 
divine  will,  always  hears  and  sees  falsely.  ('EvdvpeioOai  is,  to  re- 
volve in  the  6v[i6$,  with  the  exercise  of  the  affections.  [See  Matth. 
ix.  4 ;  Acts  x.  19.]  Ken-'  ovag  occurs  only  in  Matth.  ii.  12,  13,  19, 
22  ;  xxvii.  19.  The  phrase  Kofi1  vnap  is  its  opposite,  but  does  not 
occur  in  the  New  Testament.  'Ev  avry  =  £v  -rq  KoMa  av-nfr ,  the  child 
unborn,  yet  reposing  in  the  womb  of  its  mother,  but  still  already 
existing.  The  preposition  KK,  denotes  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the 
creative  cause  of  the  child's  existence.) 

Ver.  21. — The  indefinite  neuter  -yevvrjdev,  offspring,  is  more  pre- 
cisely characterized  as  son  ;  the  name  to  be  given  him  is  mentioned, 
and  the  meaning  of  his  name,  in  relation  to  his  appointed  work,  is 
set  forth.  A  significance  in  names  is  found  throughout  the  Scrip- 
tures. A  name,  according  to  its  proper  intention,  should  not  be  ar- 
bitrary, but  should  express  the  nature  of  him  who  bears  it.  Sin. 
annihilates  this  original  significancy  of  names,  by  extinguishing  the 
capacity  of  ascertaining  the  inward  essence  ;  in  the  principal  charac- 
ters, however,  who  stand  as  the  bearers  of  what  is  noble  among  our 
race,  the  Spirit  from  above  supplied  this  deficiency.  The  last  words 
of  the  verse  declare  the  great  and  exalted  destination  of  this  divinely- 
begotten  one  ;  he  is  described  as  the  cromfc,  Saviour,  (?*"? )  of  his 
people.  The  expression  Aadf,  people,  -  n»  stands  for  the  Jewish 
people,  in  opposition  to  the  edvr],  Gentiles,  =  di'a,  although  S6vo^ 
also  sometimes  denotes  the  Jewish  people.  (John  xi.  51.)  That  the 

VOL.  I.— 12 


178  MATTHEW  I.  21,  22,  23. 

angel,  on  this  occasion,  regards  the  appointment  of  the  Messiah  only 
in  relation  to  the  Jewish  people  is  on  the  same  principle  upon  which 
Jesus  himself  so  represents  it.  (See  note  on  Matth.  x.  5,  6.)  The 
Jews  had,  in  fact,  according  to  the  whole  divine  economy  and  plan  of 
salvation,  the  first  call  and  appointment  to  the  ovTypia,  salvation, 
This  by  no  means  excludes  its  relation  to  the  heathen  ;  the  Saviour's 
people  (Aadf)  is,  in  a  wider  sense,  the  whole  spiritual  Israel — all 
minds  desirous  of  righteousness  and  truth,  among  all  people,  trihes, 
and  tongues.  (John  x.  16.)  The  addition  of  "from  their  sins,"  is 
significant  of  the  character  of  the  promised  salvation.  The  moral 
import  of  the  redemption  to  be  looked  for  through  the  Messiah, 
which,  at  the  time  of  Christ,  was  lost  among  the  common  mass,  but 
not  among  the  noble-minded  of  the  people,  is  here  prominent,  and 
can  be  denied  only  by  such  as  are  blinded  by  partiality  ;  for  it  cor- 
responds to  the  expression  in  the  parallel  passage  (Luke  i.  77),  the 
dfaais  r&v  dfiapTt&v,  forgiveness  of  sins.  2waei  duo  r&v  dfiapritiv,  he 
shall  save  from  their  sins,  denotes,  as  it  were,  their  removal — i.  e., 
their  extinction.  To  refer  dpapria,  sin,  to  the  punishment  of  sin 
(and,  indeed,  to  the  most  external,  the  oppression  of  the  Komans), 
is  incorrect,  for  this  reason,  that  a^apr/a  never  does,  and  never  can, 
signify  the  punishment  of  sin  without  the  sin,  but  only  together 
loitli  it. 

Ver.  22,  23. — The  following  are  evidently  not  the  words  of  the 
angel,  but  of  the  Evangelist,  who  refers  his  Jewish  readers  to  the 
Old  Testament,  in  order  to  prove  to  them,  that  what  was  new  in  the 
Gospel,  already  existed  in  the  sacred  foundations  on  which  their 
faith  rested.  The  Lord  himself  appears  as  the  effective  cause  (vno 
by,  like  KK,  out  of,  above,  is  used  of  the  source,  the  origin)  ;  the 
prophet  appears  only  as  the  intermediate  organ.  (Am,  as  distin- 
guished from  VTTO,  denotes  the  instrument,  by  means  of  which  some- 
thing is  accomplished.)  But,  with  respect  to  the  formula  :  Iva  or 
oncog  7r/l?7pa)#g,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  appears  to  be  a  stand- 
ing one,  particularly  with  Matthew,  it  is  evident,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  New  Testament  writers  themselves  understood  it,  ac- 
cording to  the  natural  meaning  of  the  words  ;  that  is  to  say, 
TT^povadai,  to  be  fulfilled,  in  the  sense  of  something  that  was  pro- 
mised in  time  past,  being  realized  at  the  present  time  ;  so  that 
•n^ovadai  always  supposes  a  previous  promise.  The  conjunction  Iva 
cannot  be  translated  so  that,  denoting  a  result  (itcftariK^'),  but 
always  expresses  an  intention  (rekiK&g),  to  the  end  that,  in  order 
that.  In  the  whole  formula  it  is  evident,  that  the  event  being 
intended,  is  just  what  is  meant  to  be  brought  into  notice ;  and 
TrkTjpovadai  itself  necessarily  leads  us  to  this  idea.  We  may,  there- 
fore, supply  VTTO  rov  KVQIOV,  by  the  Lord,  after  rovro  JKJOVEV,  this 
took  place,  since  that  which  took  place  must  not  be  regarded  as 


MATTHEW  I.  22,  23.  179 

accidental.  The  formula  does  receive  its  simple  grammatical  ex- 
planation in  those  cases  where  interpreters  consider  actual  Old 
Testament  prophecies  referred  to  ;  but  when  such  are  not  found, 
a  wider  sense  is  wont  to  be  given  to  the  phrase  in  this  way : 
'  The  result  is  such,  that  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  may 
be  suitably  applied  to  it/  This  explanation  is  defended  on  the 
ground,  that  Iva,  that,  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  express 
the  event  (£KJ3aTiK&$  ;)*  but  from  the  fact  that  Iva  may  be  so 
used,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  must  be  so  taken  in  some  of  the 
passages  which  contain  this  phrase.  This  expression,  which  ap- 
pears so  constantly  in  the  New  Testament,  can  have  but  one 
and  the  same  sense  in  all  the  places  where  it  is  used.  To  ap- 
peal to  the  custom  universally  prevalent  among  the  Jews,  of  apply- 
ing passages  of  the  Old  Testament  in  relations  quite  different  from 
those  involved  in  their  original  connexion,  cannot  in  this  case 
be  allowed  ;  because,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
the  sacred  writers  should  have  accommodated  themselves  to  a 
custom  so  unmeaning,  and  so  much  exposed  to  abuse  ;  and  then, 
further,  even  if  such  were  the  case,  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
Iva  TrkrjpuOq,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  would  not  be  altered, 
since,  if  the  New  Testament  writers  did  follow  this  habit,  they 
must  have  held,  in  connexion  with  it,  the  principle  out  of  which 
it  arose — viz.,  that  the  Scriptures  contain  endless  references,  and  can, 
therefore,  be  applied  to  all  possible  circumstances.  The  Rabbi  im- 
agines it  really  to  be  so  with  his  quotations  of  Scripture  (nonsensi- 
cal as  they  may  be)  ;  and  agreeably  to  this  view  of  the  multifarious 
applicability  of  the  contents  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  he  believes 
that  he  finds  a  real  fulfilment  of  the  Bible  language  where  he  ap- 
plies it.  In  my  opinion,  therefore,  it  is  nothing  but  doctrinal  pre- 
judice which  gave  occasion  to  an  interpretation  varying  from  the 

*  The  question  of  the  use  of  Iva  is  of  great  importance  doctrinally.  It  comes  under 
special  notice  in  the  subject  of  predestination,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  prophecies  from 
the  Old  Testament.  (See  observations  on  Matth.  xiii.  14, 15 ;  John  xii.  39, 40.)  But  it  is 
worth  noticing,  that  to  assert  that  Iva  is  very  frequently  used  eK/Jart/coif,  tends  to  take  away 
the  force  of  many  passages,  no  lees  than  is  done  by  asserting  that  it  is  never  so  used.  This 
is  the  case,  for  instance,  with  John  xvii.  3,  where  the  words  CUD;  &<JTIV  rjaluviog  fat),  Iva 
yivuGKuai.  6s6v,  are  translated  by  some  :  "  vita  seterna  in  hoc  cernitur  studio,  ut  te  cog- 
noscant."  Instead  of  the  knowledge  of  God  itself,  nothing  is  left  for  us  but  a  mere  striv- 
ing after  it.  It  appears  to  me  that  in  this  case  also,  the  truth  lies  midway  between  the 
two,  and  that  John,  in  particular,  certainly  does  use  Iva  of  the  event.  This  Evangelist  has 
used  oiare  once  only  (John  iii.  16)  in  all  his  writings ;  and  in  that  instance  it  is  after  a 
preceding  ovruf ;  oiruf,  too,  occurs  only  in  John  i.  57.  But  it  is  inconceivable  that 
John  should  not  sometimes  have  wished  to  express  the  notion  of  mere  consequence  with- 
out intention.  Such  passages  as  John  iv.  34 ;  ix.  2  ;  xv.  1 3 ;  xvi.  7  ;  xvii.  3,  shews  that 
he  employed  Iva  for  this  purpose.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore,  that  Winer  (Gr.  of  the 
N.  T.  Idioms,  §  57)  goes  somewhat  too  far  when  he  admits  the  less  forcible  meaning  of 
Iva  only  after  verbs  expressing  command,  desire,  request ;  but  denies  altogether  that  Iva 
and  ware  are  interchanged. 


180  MATTHEW  I.  22,  23. 

simple  grammatical  explanation.  Certain  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament  were  quoted  as  prophecies  in  the  New,  which  in 
their  original  connexion,  it  was  thought  impossible  to  regard  as 
such  ;  then,  in  order  that  it  might  not  seem  as  if  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  quoted  passages  from  the  Old  which  did  not  contain 
prophecies,  as  if  they  did,  Iva  TrhrjQuOy,  with  such  quotations, 
was  translated  in  the  manner  above  named.  If  this  difficulty  be  re- 
moved, there  remains  no  occasion  for  a  departure  from  the  literal 
sense  of  the  words. 

But  the  difficulty  can  be  removed  by  our  acknowledging  in  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies  a  twofold  reference  to  a  present  lower 
subject,  and  to  a  future  higher  one.  With  this  supposition,  we  can 
everywhere  adhere  to  the  immediate,  simple,  grammatical  sense  of 
the  words,  and  still  recognize  the  quotations  of  the  New  Testament 
as  prophecies  in  the  full  sense.  And  it  belongs  to  the  peculiar  ad- 
justment and  arrangement  of  the  Scripture,  that  the  life  and  sub- 
stance of  the  Old  Testament  were  intended  as  a  mirror  of  the  New 
Testament  life,  and  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  particularly,  as  the 
representative  of  the  New  Testament,  all  the  rays  of  Old  Testament 
ideas  and  institutions  are  concentrated  as  in  their  focus.*  (Consult 
the  Author's  dissertation :  Ein  Wort  uber  tieferen  Schriftsinn, 
Konigsberg,  1824.  On  the  opposite  side  :  Steudel  in  Bengel's 
Archiv,  B.  iii.,  St.  2.  Lastly,  Kleinert's  observations  in  Tholuck's 
Literarischer  Anzeiger,  year  1831,  No.  28.)  This  general  character 
of  the  old  Testament  shews  itself  in  the  passage  here  quoted  from 
Isa.  vii.  14.  The  immediate,  grammatical  sense  of  the  words  of  the 
passage,  necessarily  requires  a  reference  to  some  thing  present,  since 
the  irapdevog,  virgin,  who  was  to  bring  forth  Immanuel,  is  repre- 
sented by  the  prophet  as  a  sign  of  King  Ahaz  ; — a  reference  to  the 
Messiah,  born  of  a  virgin  centuries  after,  appears  to  answer  no  end 
whatever  for  the  immediate  circumstances.  It  is  most  natural  to 
suppose,  that  by  napdevos  is  meant  the  betrothed  of  the  prophet, 
called  in  Isa.  viii.  3,  ns->as,  as  being  his  wife.  (Ilapflevof,  equivalent 
to  msVs,  unmarried  woman,  is  indeed  in  itself  different  from  rfcsna, 

T  i  -'  T         :' 

which  necessarily  denotes  pure  virginity ;  but  the  word  wsV?,  too, 
may,  and  must,  in  this  case,  be  taken  for  a  pure  virgin.)  The  pas- 

*  See  Hamann,  in  the  history  of  his  conversion  (Werke  Th.  i.,  S.  211.  ff.):  "I  found 
the  unity  of  the  divine  will  in  the  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ,  inasmuch  as  all  history,  all 
miracles,  all  God's  commands  and  works,  tended  to  this  centre."  In  Hamann's  works,  a 
spiritual  exposition,  like  that  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  employ,  may  be 
seen  in  a  modern  author.  Bengel  also  says  very  truly  (Gnomon  ad.  h.  1),  "  Ssepe  in  N. 
T.  allegantur  vaticinia,  quorum  contextum  prophetarum  tempore  non  dubium  est,  quin 
auditores  eorum  ex  intentione  divina  interpretari  debuerint  de  rebus  jam  turn  praesentibus. 
Eadem  vero  intentio  divina,  longius  prospiciens,  sic  formavit  oralionem,  ut  magis  proprie 
deinceps  ea  conveniret  in  tempora  Messiae,  et  hanc,  intentionem  divinam  apostoli  nos  do- 
cent,  nosque  dociles  habere  debent" 


MATTHEW  I.  22,  23.  181 

sage,  then,  affords  the  natural  sense,  that  Isaiah  gives  Ahaz  the 
sign,  that  she  who  is  now  his  betrothed,  and  will  soon  be  his  wife, 
shall  bear  a  son,  named  Immanuel ;  and  before  this  son  shall  have 
come  to  knowledge  (that  is,  in  two  or  three  years),  his  prophecies 
shall  be  fulfilled.  Thus  the  King  Ahaz  had  given  to  him  a  sign 
(nis)  close  at  hand,  and  intelligible  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  the 
birth  of  Immanuel  had  its  higher  reference  to  the  Messiah,  by  whom 
the  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  a  far  higher  sense,  since  he  was  born 
of  a  virgin,  and  as  a  sign  (H«N)  for  the  unbelieving  world,  which  Ahaz 
represents.  This  agrees  well  with  the  symbolizing  manner  in  which 
Isaiah  named  his  sons  throughout.  He  represented  a  whole  chain 
of  ideas  and  facts,  which  were  especially  important  to  him,  from  the 
circumstances  of  the  times,  in  the  names  of  his  children,  one  of  whom 
was  called  Shear-Jashub  (Isa.  vii.  3)  ;  the  second,  Maher-shalal- 
hash-baz  (viii.  3)  ;  and  the  third,  Immanuel.  Thus  he  formed  with 
his  family,  as  it  were,  an  embodied  and  personified  circle  of  ideas, 
in  which  his  spirit  moved.  Such  a  form  of  teaching  is  quite  in  agree- 
ment with  the  prophetic  agency  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  Matthew 
was  perfectly  justified  in  referring  the  event  of  the  birth  of  Im- 
manuel to  the  birth  of  Christ,  because  that  parallel  was  intended 
by  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  himself*  The  words  of  Matthew,  final- 
ly, do  not  follow  the  LXX.  precisely,  and  differ  from  the  original, 

°  I  have  not  been  convinced  of  the  untenableness  of  the  interpretation  just  given  to 
the  passage  Isa.  vii.  14,  even  by  the  able  defence  of  the  opposite  view — viz.,  that  no  in- 
ferior subject  is  intended  by  the  prophet's  words — set  up  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  Christo- 
logy,  vol.  i.,  p.  307,  ff.  It  seems  to  me  that  he  has  not  succeeded  in  solving  the  difficulty, 
how  the  reference  to  the  Messiah  could  be  a  sign  for  Ahaz.  Looking  at  it  free  from  pre- 
judice, one  is  necessarily  led  to  expect  that  Ahaz  must  have  had  something  given  him, 
which  he  would  live  to  witness.  It  is  very  forced  to  refer  the  period  of  two  or  three 
years  spoken  of  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  born  centuries  after.  At  any  rate,  the  pro- 
phecy could  not  then  have  any  meaning  for  Ahaz.  The  reasons  brought  forward  against 
my  view,  seem  to  me  unimportant;  for  when  Hengstenberg  reminds  us,  that  there  is  no 
likeness  between  the  birth  of  Immanuel  in  a  natural  manner,  and  that  of  the  Messiah  in 
a  supernatural  manner,  it  is  certainly  true  that  Matthew  lays  stress  on  the  term  -apdevof, 
which  in  the  prophet  has  not  the  emphasis ;  but«uch  a  free  use  of  prophecies  is  not  un- 
common in  the  New  Testament,  particularly  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  is  quite 
safe  when  the  passage  so  used  is  a  real  prophecy  or  a  type,  as  in  this  instance.  In  this 
passage  the  unity  of  the  reference  lies  in  the  name  Immanuel;  Isaiah's  son  had  the  name, 
but  Christ  the  essence.  He  was  God  manifested,  whom  the  former  merely  represented. 
Besides,  discordant  features  are  necessarily  found  in  every  type  or  symbol,  for  otherwise 
it  would  not  be  a  type,  but  the  thing  itself.  All  prophecies  of  Scripture  have,  therefore, 
points  of  similarity  enough  to  be  understood  by  him  who  needs  them,  and  who  because 
of  his  need,  seeks  for  them;  but  likewise  dissimilarities  enough  to  be  misunderstood  by 
him  who  will  not  perceive.  In  the  main,  I  agree  in  my  view  of  Isaiah  vii.  14,  with  Urn- 
Ireit's  Observations  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  year  1830,  H.  iii.  S.  638,  ff.  The  late  Pro- 
fessor Kleinerfs  hypothesis  in  TholucKs  Anzeiger,  year  1832,  No.  25,  ff.,  that  we  should 
conceive  the  facts  respecting  the  virgin  and  Immanuel  as  a  vision  which  God  shewed  to 
Ahaz  by  the  prophet,  would  in  fact  explain  several  circumstances,  if  there  were  but  one 
word  in  the  text  intimating  that  this  was  the  account  of  a  vision.  "Without  such  an  in- 
timation, however,  the  supposition  of  a  vision  remains  purely  gratuitous. 


182  MATTHEW  I.  24,  25. 

also,  in  translating  f\xyr  (thou  shaft  call,  2d  pers.  sing,  fern.)  by 
KaMaovm,  they  shall  call. 

Ver.  24,  25. — Joseph  was  in  every  thing  obedient  to  the  divine 
command,  believed  in  the  purity  of  his  wife,  took  her  to  himself,  and 
gave  the  child,  after  his  birth,  the  appointed  name.  But  the  Evan- 
gelist adds  a  remark  worthy  of  notice,  in  the  words,  ova  lytvuoKEv 
avrr)V,  twf  ov  KTSKS  rbv  vlbv  avrrjg  rbv  rrpwroroicov,  he  knew  her  not 
until  she  bore,  &c.  It  is  unnecessary  to  prove,  that  in  these  words 
yiv&oKKiv  =  »T!,  to  know,  is  used  of  connubial  connexion  ;  the  only 
question  is,  whether  the  meaning  of  the  word  is,  that  it  did  not  take 
place  in  Joseph's  marriage  at  all,  or  merely  that  it  did  not  previous 
to  the  birth  of  Jesus  ?  The  words  suggest,  at  first  sight,  the  latter, 
particularly  t'w?  ov,  until,  and  npuroroKog,  first-born.  The  former 
appears  to  suppose  connubial  intercourse  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  ; 
the  latter  seems  to  say  that  Mary  had  several  children.  As,  however, 
it  is  not  probable,  from  the  Gospel-history,  that  Mary  had  other 
children  (see  note  on  Matth.  xiii.  55,  for  a  more  particular  account), 
no  conjlusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  word  -np^rorono^  to  compel  us 
to  suppose,  that  afterwards  connubial  intercourse  between  Joseph 
and  Mary  took  place.  The  term  is  merely  equivalent  to  n'.ss  or 
Dfp—iz^  in  Hebrew,  which  may  signify  either  the  first  among  others, 
or  the  only  child.  nSsa  is  the  first  son,  preceding  the  birth  of  any 
daughter :  for  him  the  mother  must  offer  the  sacrifices  for  the  first- 
born, while  as  yet  entirely  ignorant  whether  she  would  have  other 
children.  (It  should  be  particularly  noticed  also,  that  the  expression 
is  TTpwTOTo/cof  avTTjc;,  HER  first-born.  The  term  has,  of  course,  quite 
a  different  meaning  in  the  phrases,  Trpwroro/co^  iv  TroA/LoZf  ddety>olg}  first- 
born among  many  brethren  (Rom.  viii.  29),  IK  r&v  v£np&v}from  the 
dead  (Rev.  i.  5),  ndo^  KTiaeug,  of  every  creature  (Col.  i.  15).  So 
also  in  Heb.  i.  6,  where  the  term  stands  alone.  (See  the  Commentary 
on  these  passages.)  The  formula  £eo$-  ov,  until,  •=.  *s~iy  does  not  neces- 
sarily assert,  that  what  is  said  not  to  have  taken  place  before  a  certain 
time,  did  happen  after  it.  In  the  Old  Testament,  this  is  proved  by 
such  passages  as  Gen.  viii.  7,  2  Sam.  vi.  23.  In  the  New  Testament, 
indeed,  none  of  the  passages  quoted  in  proof  are  quite  conclusive — e.g., 
Matth.  xxii.  44  (compared  with  1  Cor.  xv.,  28),  Matth.  v.  26,  xviii.  30. 
But  it  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  particle,  that  it  does  not  necessarily 
affirm  that  what  had  not  taken  place  up  to  a  certain  point  of  time, 
has  taken  place  since.  Al]  depends  on  the  circumstances  aud  relations. 
(If  we  were  to  say,  we  waited  till  midnight,  but  no  one  came,  that  does 
not  imply,  that  after  midnight  some  one  came  ;  it  means,  no  one  came 
at  all.)*  We  must  say,  therefore,  that  from  this  passage  no  conclusion 

*  But  to  say  that  no  one  came  until  midnight,  would  naturally  imply  that  some  one 
came  after  midnight.  The  moral  consideration  alleged  against  Mary's  having  other  chil- 
dren than  Jesus,  viz.,  that  it  was  fitting  that  the  Messiah  should  terminate  his  line,  can- 
not have  much  weight  against  positive  grounds.  On  this  principle,  why  did  Mary  marry 
at  all  ?  Why  did  Providence  select  a  virgin  who  was  actually  betrothed  ? — [K. 


MATTHEW  II.  1.  183 

can  be  drawn  either  for  the  one  view  or  the  other  ;  Matthew  merely 
states  as  fact — "  Till  the  birth  of  Jesus  he  knew  not  Mary."  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  after  what  he  had  passed  through,  Joseph 
might  justly  think  that  his  marriage  with  Mary  had  another  pur- 
pose than  that  of  begetting  children.  Perhaps  the  words  of  the 
Evangelist  are  framed  purposely  thus,  to  prevent  any  inference  that 
might  be  drawn  from  these  events  against  the  sanctity  of  marriage  ; 
yet  it  still  seems  consonant  with  the  nature  of  things,  that  the 
last  female  descendant  of  David,  in  the  family  of  which  the  Mes- 
siah was  born,  closed  her  family  with  this  last  and  eternal  scion. 
(The  opposite  view  is  defended  by  Stier,  Andeutungen  fiir  gliiubiges 
Schriftverstandniss,  Th.  i.  S.  404,  ff.) 

§   3.   ARRIVAL   OF   THE    MAGI — FLIGHT    INTO    EGYPT — MURDER    OF 
THE    CHILDREN — RETURN    TO    GALILEE. 

(Matth.  ii.  1-23.) 

Ver.  1. — It  is  only  in  passing,  and  as  a  supplementary  remark, 
that  Matthew  states  that  Jesus  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  in  the  time 
of  Herod*  (that  is,  the  Great,  the  son  of  Antipater),  while  he  says  no- 
thing definitely  of  the  residence  of  Joseph  and  Mary  :  it  is  hence 
clearly  seen,  that  the  Evangelist,  in  his  account  of  Christ's  life,  in- 
tentionally disregards  the  relations  of  place  as  well  as  of  time — a  fact 
not  unimportant  in  the  apparent  contradictions  between  Matthew 
and  Luke,  which  are  presently  to  be  noticed.  (BT/fl/Ut^,  Bethle- 
hem, =  BfiV— rva  lay  two  hours,f  or  six  Roman  miles  south-west 
of  Jerusalem.  The  town  was  originally  named  Ephrath.  [Gen. 
xxxv.  19,  xlviii.  7.J  The  addition,  ri\q  'lovdaiag,  of  Judea,  is  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  another  Bethlehem  in  Galilee,  in  the  tribe  of  Zebu- 
lun,  mentioned  in  Joshua  xix.  15.  As  being  David's  birthplace,  it 
is  called  simply,  "  City  of  David."  See  Luke  ii.  4,  11.) 

The  most  important  circumstance  in  Matthew's  eyes  is,  that  the 
new-born  Messiah  received  at  once  the  homage  of  the  Magi. 
(Mayoi,  Magi,  is  well-known  to  have  been  originally  the  name  of 
the  learned  class  among  the  Parsees.  In  Jer.  xxxix.  3,  the  term 
att-d]  is  used  of  the  head  of  the  College  of  the  Magi.  The  Greek 
explanation  of  the  word,  as  given  in  Suidas,  fahoaofyoi,  <f>ik66eoi 
sages,  devout  persons,  is  less  correct  than  that  which  explains 

*  As  Matthew  gives  no  more  definite  statement  as  to  the  person  of  Herod,  several 
princes  of  which  name  reigned  in  Palestine  (see  the  first  chronological  table  before  the 
Exposition  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles),  it  is  clear  that  he  supposes  his  readers  to  possess 
some  knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  which  accounts  for  several  peculiarities  in  his 
narrative. 

f  [Stunde,  hour,  is  used  in  Germany  as  a  measure  of  distance.  It  is  something  less 
than  three  English  miles.] — Tr. 


184  MATTHEW  II.  1. 

it,  great,  excellent,  from  a  Persian  root.  [In  the  Persian  ar- 
row-headed inscriptions  appears  the  word  Maghu,  Magian.  See 
Theod.  Benfey,  die  Pers.  Keilinschriften,  Leipz.  1847,  p.  89.]  In 
later  times,  the  name  pdyoq,  Magian,  like  mathematicus,  Chal- 
daeus,  was  used  of  all  who  were  attached  to  occult  science  —  es- 
pecially of  astrologers.  See  Acts  xiii.  6.)  This  narrative  is  most 
simply  explained,  if  we  regard  the  Magi  as  adherents  of  the  Zoroas- 
trian  worship  of  light,  which,  even  before  the  time  of  Christ,  was 
widely  spread  through  western  Asia.  Pornpey  found  the  worship  of 
Mithras,  a  branch  of  the  Zend  religion,  among  the  Cilician  pirates. 
Of.  Pint.  vit.  Pomp.  cap.  37.  The  expression  OTTO  awroAwv,®  from 
the  east,  is  hence  best  left  in  the  indefinite  generality  proper  to  it  ; 
it  applies,  like  D-jsto,  to  all  that  is  situated  east  of  Palestine  —  to 
adjacent  Arabia,  and  even  to  the  more  distant  Persia.  Now,  the 
hypothesis  that  these  Magi  were  Parsees,  is  highly  probable  ;  first, 
because  there  are  remarkable  germs  of  truth  in  the  Zend  system 
itself  —  e.  g.,  the  idea  of  a  Sosiosh  —  an  expected  Saviour  ;  and  fur- 
ther, because  an  intermixture  of  Jewish  ideas  is  more  easily  con- 
ceivable in  their  case  than  in  that  of  any  other  nation.  But  such 
an  intermixture  must  on  this  occasion  be  supposed,  since  the  Per- 
sians expected  their  Saviour  from  the  family  of  Zoroaster  ;  but  these 
Magi  come  to  seek  for  the  King  of  the  Jews  (ver.  2).-f-  The  circum- 
stance, too,  that  a  star  guided  the  Magi,  points  to  the  pursuit  of 
astronomy,  which  was  not  unknown  among  the  Parsees.  With  re- 
spect to  the  statement  that  about  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Christ, 
the  prophecy  of  the  appearance  of  a  great  universal  monarch  in 
the  East  was  spread  far  and  wide,  even  among  the  heathen  (Suet. 
Vesp.  c.  4.  Tacit.  Hist.  V.  13.  Joseph.  B.  J.  i.  5,  5  ;  vii.  31)  —  a  proof 
how  great  events,  affecting  the  whole  of  mankind,  are  ushered  in  by 
a  sort  of  presentiment  —  this  vague  expectation  can  scarcely  be  used 
in  explanation  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi.  Their  faith  rested  clearly 
on  firmer  props  than  so  indefinite  a  rumour  could  supply.  They 
recognized  in  the  new-born  one,  whom  they  were  seeking,  not  merely 
a  ruler,  but  the  Saviour  himself  —  their  Sosiosh.  But,  substantially 
correct  as  was  their  knowledge,  we  must  still  beware  of  ascribing 
sharply  defined  doctrinal  ideas  to  those  believing  strangers4  The 


jy,  rising,  east,  used  of  a  quarter  of  the  world,  appears  like  Avoficf  setting 
west,  chiefly  in  the  plural  (see  Matth.  viii.  11,  uird  avaro'Xtiv  KOL  Svapuv),  perhaps  be- 
cause of  the  daily  return  of  the  rising  and  setting  sun. 

f  These  Magi  might  also  be  thought  to  be  Jews,  perhaps  of  the  dispersed  ten  tribes  ; 
but  the  words,  EaaAeiif  TUV  '[ovoaiuv,  evidently  imply  that  they  were  not  Jews. 

J  That  this  visit  of  the  Magians  was  ordered  by  Divine  Providence,  had  a  special 
significance,  and  was  accompanied,  perhaps,  or  followed  by  the  germs  of  a  sincere  faith 
in  them,  cannot  be  doubted.  Yet  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  Olshausen  does  not  press 
the  narrative  quite  too  far.  Did  they  not  commence  their  journey  because  the  appear- 
ance of  an  unwonted  star  led  them  to  believe  in  the  birth  of  some  royal  personage  ;  and 
come  to  Palestine  because  the  star  overhung  that  land,  just  as  it  subsequently  guided 


MATTHEW  II.  1,  2.  185 

early  church,  moreover,  looked  upon  these  Magi  as  the  representa- 
tives of  the  heathen  world,  which,  in  them,  offered  its  homage  to 
the  Lord — a  rational  thought,  full  of  deep  truth  !  Agreeably  to 
Old  Testament  hints  of  this  fact  (Ps\  Ixviii.  30,  32  ;  Ixxii.  10  ;  Isa. 
xlix.  7  ;  Ix.  3,  6),  the  Magi  were  early  taken  to  be  kings,  and,  in 
the  legend,  bore  the  names  of  Caspar,  Melchior,  and  Balthazar. 

It  was  an  easy  step  for  the  advocates  of  myths  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, to  view  this  occurrence  of  the  appearance  of  the  Magi, 
before  the  new-born  Kedeemer,  as  a  philosophical  myth,  without 
any  historical  foundation  whatever,  by  which  tradition  intended  to 
express  the  idea  awakened  by  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
just  referred  to,  that  the  Messiah  would  -exercise  a  universal  influ- 
ence, extending  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Jewish  people.0  But  it  is 
at  variance  with  this  view  that  Matthew  is  the  Evangelist  in  whom 
this  universal  character  of  Christ's  mission  is  least  prominent.  As 
related  by  contemporaries,  this  narrative  if  destitute  of  historical 
truth,  could  be  nothing  but  gross  deception. 

Ver.  2. — The  words  which  the  family  memoirs  here  employed  by 
Matthew  attribute  to  the  Magi,  indicate  a  knowledge  of  the  special 
relation  in  which  the  new-born  one  stood  to  the  Jewish  people.  The 
"  King  of  the  Jews"  is  not  a  king  who  rules  over  the  Jews  alone — 
the  Magi  represent  their  own  subjection  under  his  (spiritual)  power 
by  their  symbolical  action — but  a  King,  who  springs  from  the  Jews, 
and  from  them,  as  a  centre,  extends  his  kingdom.  Thus  it  expresses 
properly  the  true  idea,  "  salvation  is  of  the  Jews"  (John  iv.  22). 
As  the  sure  sign  of  his  birth,  they  mention  the  sight  of  his  star 
(eido;j,ev  avrov  rbv  daripd).  They  knew,  therefore,  that  a  heavenly 
sign  would  stand  connected  with  the  earthly  appearance  of  this 
(spiritual)  king.  That  great  events  on  earth  had  their  correspond- 
ing appearances  in  the  heavens,  which  shewed  themselves  principally 
in  stars,  was  a  very  general  opinion  of  antiquity  (see,  for  instance, 
Justin.  Hist,  xxxvii.  2.  Sueton.  vit.  Cses.  c.  88),  and  not  without 
truth,  though  it  commonly  served  the  purposes  of  superstition.* 
In  the  life  of  the  Saviour,  the  surmise  expressed  in  this  opinion  at- 
tained to  reality  and  truth.  In  what  this  a<m?p  Baoikeug,  king's 

them  to  Bethlehem  and  the  very  house  ?  The  narrative  implies  surely  no  spiritual  con- 
ception of  the  new-born  king. — K. 

*  The  advocates  of  the  mythical  view  are  quite  arbitrary  in  using  sometimes  this  and 
sometimes  that  circumstance,  to  defend  their  view,  without  regarding  internal  consistency. 
At  one  time,  they  make  the  apostles  imagine  that  the  mission  of  the  Messiah  was  to  be 
confined  to  the  people  of  Israel ;  and  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  they  make  them  invent 
myths,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  his  universal  mission. 

f  In  the  tract,  Yalkut  Rubeni,  it  is  said:  "  Qua  hora  natus  est  Abrahamus  stetit  sidus 
quoddam  in  oriente,  et  deglutivit  quatuor  astra,  quse  erant  in  quatuor  coeli  plagis."  (See 
JBeriholdti  Christol.  Jud.  page  55.)  The  words  evidently  describe  a  conjunction  of  planets, 
according  to  the  sensible  impression.  Four  stars  united  and  formed  a  whole,  so  that  one 
great  star  seemed  to  have  swallowed  the  four  little  ones. 


186  MATTHEW  II.  2,  3,  4 

star,  consisted,  is  hardly  to  be  ascertained  with  certainty.  The  idea 
of  a  meteoric  appearance  is  the  most  improbable  ;  it  could  not 
find  any  support  but  in  ver.  9,  where  it  is  said,  "  the  star  stood 
over  where  the  young  child  was."  Chalcidius,  the  Platonist  (Opp. 
Hippoliti  eded.  J.  A.  Fabricius,  page  325),  understood  a  comet 
to  be  meant  by  the  star.  The  learned  Bishop  Miinter,  of  Copenha- 
gen, takes  it  to  be  a  constellation,  and  refers  to  the  conjunction  of 
planets  which  took  place  in  the  year  1825.  (See  the  Dissertations 
of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  at  Copenhagen,  for  the  year  1820.)  It 
is  most  probable  to  me  that  a  particular  star  is  intended,*  because 
of  the  parallel  between  this  passage  and  Matth.  xxiv.  30,  where,  in 
like  manner,  a  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  heaven  is  foretold,  with 
reference  to  Christ's  second  coming  ;  just  as  in  Numb.  xxiv.  17,  it  is 
held  up  as  a  prophecy  of  the  first  coming  of  our  Lord.  (In  order  to 
apply  this  passage  to  himself,  the  well-known  false  Messiah,  took  the 
name  of  Barkochba — i.  e.,  son  of  the  star.) 

Ver.  3,  4. — This  intelligence  was  a  message  of  terror  to  the  king 
and  the  city  of  Jerusalem  (in  its  representatives — the  ecclesiastical 
rulers  of  the  Jews) ;  partly,  because  in  general  what  is  great  and 
mighty  when  it  comes  into  our  immediate  neighbourhood,  seizes  us 
with  a  feeling  akin  to  terror,  (for  we  cannot  suppose  that  all  the  chief 
priests  and  scribes  would  be  terrified  at  the  appearance  of  the  Mes- 
siah, on  account  of  their  sins) ;  partly,  because  conscience  announced 
to  Herod,  now  grown  grey  in  sin,  as  well  as  to  the  priestly  caste, 
from  selfishness  (at  least  in  the  majority)  alive  only  to  their  own  in- 
terest, that  with  the  appearance  of  the  King  of  Righteousness,  their 
kingdom  of  iniquity  was  drawing  near  its  end.  From  the  external 
character  which  the  expectations  of  a  Messiah  had  acquired  among 
the  Jews,  it  is  more  than  probable  that,  with  most  of  those  who 
heard  of  the  appearance  of  a  King  of  the  Jews,  political  fears  or 
hopes  would  be  excited.  Only  we  must  not  forget  to  notice,  that 
the  correct  view  of  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Messiah  had  main- 

*  Ideler,  who  follows  the  Abbot  Sanclemente,  so  celebrated  as  a  chronologer,  has 
made  me  doubt  whether  the  star  ought  not  still  to  be  regarded  as  a  conjunction  of  planets. 
The  above-mentioned  scholars  employ  their  view  of  it  to  fix  the  chronology  of  the  year 
of  Christ's  birth,  and  shew  that,  six  years  before  the  Christian  era,  a  most  remarkable 
conjunction  of  all  the  chief  planets  in  our  system  did  take  place.  Now,  as  the  planets, 
according  to  the  latest  and  most  exact  calculations,  were  sometimes  close  together,  at 
others,  farther  off  from  each  other ;  so  that  sometimes  the  star  seemed  to  be  there,  and 
then,  at  others,  to  disappear — all  which  agrees  well  with  Matthew's  narrative — I  am  in- 
clined to  think  this  hypothesis  very  probable.  In  addition  to  this,  according  to  Jewish 
tradition — e.  g.,  of  Abarbanel  (in  his  Commentary  on  Daniel),  such  conjunctions  are  said 
to  have  happened  at  the  birth  of  Moses  also,  and  of  other  men  of  note  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  See  Idder's  Handbuch  der  Chronologie,  Th.  ii.,  S.  410,  ff.,  and  in  the  Lehrbuch,  S. 
428,  where  there  is  a  new  calculation  by  Encke.  Kepler  already  held  the  same  opinion, 
only,  from  his  calculation  not  being  quite  correct,  he  fixed  the  date  of  conjunction  some- 
what too  late.  Ignatius  (epist.  ad  Ephes.  c.  19)  describes  the  star  as  a  remarkable  one, 
surpassing  all  others  in  the  splendour  of  its  light. 


MATTHEW  II.  3-6.  187 

tained  itself  in  the  small  circles  of  true  believers  (see  note  on  Luke 
i.  76),  and  that  by  them  outward  changes  were  regarded  but  as  the 
consequence  of  his  spiritual  influence. 

"  By  the  dp^tepe??,  chief  priests,  are  here  meant,  not  only  the 
high  priests  [V'nan  ^nis]  properly  so  called — that  is,  the  one  in  office, 
and  those  who  had  before  passed  through  it,  but  also  the  heads  of 
the  twenty-four  classes  (courses)  of  priests.  [See  note  on  Luke  i.  5.] 
Since  these  heads,  as  such,  were  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  every  mem- 
ber of  the  Sanhedrim  was  also  called  apxiepevg  chief-priest,  [John  xii 
10].  The  ypffljujua-eZf,  =  ti^b,  scribes,  include  all  who  were  skilled 
in  the  law,  like  VO^LKO^,  lawyer,  vopodiddoKa^,  teacher,  of  the  law  ', 
so  that  every  "  chief-priest"  was  a  "  scribe,"  but  not  vice  versd. 

Like  the  Magi  (ver.  2),  the  king  (ver.  4)  inquires  only  for  the 
birth-place  (jtov  yewdrai)  of  the  new  king.  The  birth  itself  appears 
to  all  indubitably  certain,  which  indicates  a  general  expectation  of 
the  Messiah.  The  present  (yewdrai,  is  born),  does  not  require  to  be 
taken  as  a  future  ;  this  tense  is  rather  used  in  relation  to  the  pro- 
phecies of  Scripture,  by  which  the  scribes  were  to  decide  ;  so  that  the 
meaning  is — Where  is  the  king  (of  whom  the  prophets  speak)  to  be 
born  ?  which  leaves  it  undecided  whether  he  be  already  born,  as  the 
Magi  declared  (TTOV  eariv  6  re^ddg  paottevg,  ver.  2),  or  is  yet  to  be  born. 

Ver.  5,  6. — The  learned  Jews  quite  correctly  assign  Bethlehem 
as  the  birthplace  of  the  Messiah,  according  to  Micah  v.  2,  in  which 
remarkable  prophecy,  acknowledged  as  such  by  most  expositors,  so 
minute,  and  so  literally  fulfilled,  the  inconsiderable  town  (hence 
called  /cwp/,  village,  in  John  vii.  42)  is  described  as  the  birthplace  of 
the  Messiah,  and  its  spiritual  glory  is  contrasted  with  its  worldly  low- 
liness. In  the  quotation,  the  Evangelist  follows  neither  the  Hebrew 
text  nor  the  LXX.  ;  he  quotes  freely  from  memory.*  The  meiosis, 
which  appears  in  the  words  ovdapjf  ika%ioT7i  el,  art  by  no  means 
least,  is  not  contained  either  in  the  original  or  the  translation  of  the 
LXX.  Still  the  variation  is  purely  formal.  Matthew  gives  merely 
the  thought  of  the  prophet,  which  is  simply  this,  that  Bethlehem, 
notwithstanding  its  mean  exterior,  is  highly  honoured. 

(  The  words  y7\  'Iwda,  land  of  Judah,  added  by  Matthew  him- 
self, refer  probably  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  which,  according  to  Gen. 
xlix.  10,  the  Messiah  was  to  be  born.  The  y/?,  land,  is  put  by  synec- 
doche for  7ro/Uf,  city,  as  e.  g.,  in  Jerem.  xxix.  7,  -P?  is  translated  yfj 
by  the  LXX.  [See  Matth.  x.  15  ;  xi.  24 ;  xiv.  34.]— Instead  of 
iv  Toig  7]yeiwmv,  among  the  rulers,  as  in  Matthew,  the  LXX.  have 
iv  xifadoiv -,  among  the  thousands,  after  the  Hebrew  '•saVsa.  The 
*  Jerome  observes  strangely  on  the  passage :  "  Arbitror  Matthseum  volentem  argnere 
ecribarum  et  sacerdotum  negligentiam  sic  etiara  posuisse  (sc.  verba  prophetae)  uti  ab  eis  dic- 
tum est." — i.  e.,  "I  think  that  Matthew,  wishing  to  expose  the  carelessness  of  the  priests 
and  scribes,  gave  the  words  of  the  prophet  as  used  by  them."  But  in  that  case  Matthew 
must,  in  other  places,  have  laid  himself  open  to  the  charge  of  the  same  "  negligentia." 


188  MATTHEW  II.  5-9. 

Jewish  people  were  divided  into  families  [o^?.,  Judges  vi.  15],  over 
which  heads  [t^B.Vh  into,  ffyepoves, Ex.  xviii,  21 ;  Numb.  i.  16]  presided. 
The  heads  of  families  are,  therefore,  in  Matthew  put  for  the  families 
themselves,  and  these  again  for  the  chief  towns  in  which  they  were 
settled.) 

As  the  characteristic  of  him  who  was  to  be  looked  for  from 
Bethlehem  («sp,  et-fyxeoOai  in  the  sense  of  "  being  born"),  the  Evangel- 
ist in  his  mode  of  applying  the  Old  Testament  quotation,  marks 
prominently  his  dominion  over  the  people  of  Israel.  The  terms  in 
which  that  dominion  is  described  appear  chosen  purposely  to  sig- 
nify its  mild  and  gracious  character.  -  ('~H.yovp.evog,  leader,  =  V>xifa, 
governor,  expresses  rather  the  idea  of  guiding  to  an  object,  than 
of  laying  down  law  and  restraining  by  force  ;  the  additional  clause 
TToip-avel  rbv  Aaov  pov,  shall  rule,  be  a  shepherd  to,  my  people, 
which  is  wanting  in  the  Hebrew  text,  is  perhaps  inserted  from  2 
Sam.  v.  2,  another  prophetic  passage.  The  ideas  of  governing  and 
tending  are  closely  related,  and  are  often  interchanged  ;  yet  noipaiveiv, 
to  tend  as  a  shepherd,  gives  greater  prominence  to  the  ideal  char- 
acter of  the  true  ruler,  who  has  the  good  of  his  subjects  at  heart, 
than  fiaoikeveiv,  to  reign.  The  special  relation  of  this  shepherd  to 
Israel  (Aaoc  =  &J>,  people,  the  opposite  of  diia  nations'),  is  to  be  re- 
garded partly  as  again  expressive  of  the  view  most  readily  suggest- 
ed of  the  influence  of  the  Messiah  (see  notes  on  Matth.  i.  21  ;  x.  6  ; 
xv.  24),  and  partly  as  inclusive  of  its  further  extension  to  the  whole 
spiritual  Israel,  scattered  among  all  nations.  (See  note  on  Matth. 
viii.  11 ;  Eom.  ii.  28,  29.) 

Ver.  7. — In  order  to  smother  all  political  excitement,  the  sus- 
picious tyrant  kept  the  arrival  of  the  Magi,  and  the  purpose  of  their 
journey  a  secret — using  them,  as  he  imagined,  for  his  own  ends. 
After  having  ascertained  from  his  doctors  the  place  of  the  birth,  he 
tried  to  discover  the  time  likewise.  This  he  connected  with  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  star  [fycp$um  rov  %povov  rov  (JXUVOUKVOV  dorepog),  but 
whether  from  the  hints  of  the  Magi  or  not,  is  uncertain.  From  ver. 
16,  therefore,  we  might  conclude  that  the  star  had  already  been  seen 
some  time — perhaps,  since  the  time  of  the  conception  of  Jesus. 
('AKpi(36u,  see  ver.  16,  =  dicpip&g  t^era^y,  ver.  8.) 

Ver.  8,  9. — By  his  outward  smoothness  Herod  hoped  the  more 
surely  to  deceive  the  simple  men,  and  induce  them  to  return  to  him; 
but  God  preserved  them  and  the  young  child  from  his  malice. 
(TlopevEuQat,  to  go,  is  used  certainly  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
Hebrew  T|^,  but  is  not  redundant,  as  the  inquiry  in  this  case  in- 
volved a  journey.)  The  relation  of  the  travelling  wise  men  to  the 
star,  as  stated  in  ver.  9,  is  not  clear.  First  of  all,  with  respect  to 
Trpof/yev  avrovg,  preceded,  led  them  on,  it  is  not  necessary  to  con- 
clude thence  that  the  star  had  disappeared,  and  then  re-appeared. 


MATTHEW  II.  9-11.  189 

The  matter  may  be  easily  imagined  thus — the  star,  which  they  had 
seen  rise  in  the  east  (lv  ry  avaro^,  ver.  2)  they  discovered,  having 
in  its  course  changed  its  position,  in  the  direction  which  they 
were  to  pursue  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethlehem.  It  continued, 
therefore,  to  precede  them  as  a  guiding  star.  (Ryodyeiv)  is  taken 
in  its  proper  signification.*)  But  what  follows  is  more  difficult — 
IWuv  ticrr)  KTrdvd)  ov  (sc.  TOTTOV)  f/v  TO  iraidiov,  it  came  and  stood  over, 
etc.,  where  mention  is  made  of  the  star  moving  and  arriving  at  a 
destined  point.  Now  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  a  star  in  the  heavens, 
whether  a  comet  or  a  constellation,  could  even  apparently  rest  over 
a  house.  A  fiery  appearance  in  the  air  would  more  easily  account 
for  this,  were  it  at  all  probable  that  any  thing  of  that  sort  could 
be  designated  by  the  term  dcmfp,  star.  The  whole  of  Matthew's 
description  evidently  indicates  a  star  that  shone  for  a  considerable 
time.  It  is  simplest  to  take  the  expression,  kWuv  ear?/,  it  came 
and  stood,  as  the  natural  conception  of  their  childlike  feeling; 
so  that  the  usual  mode  of  inquiry  after  the  child  Jesus  was  not 
meant  to  be  excluded,  while  the  result,  as  well  as  the  beginning,  of 
the  journey  is  still  ascribed  to  the  heavenly  guide.f 

Ver.  10,  11. — The  remark  again  made,  that  the  Magi  saw  the 
star  (I66vreg  rov  do-tpa),  is  not  by  any  means  to  be  referred  to  what 
precedes,  so  that  Idovreg,  seeing,  would  be  taken  for  a  pluperfect. 
It  is  better  to  refer  the  expression  to  the  ecm/,  stood,  before  men- 
tioned, so  that  the  view  of  the  star,  so  to  speak,  terminating  its 
office,  filled  them  with  a  peculiarly  joyful  surprise.  ('Exdprjcav  %apdv} 
rejoiced  with  joy,  is  a  familiar  Hebraism  [see  1  Sam.  iv.  5]  ;  some- 
thing analogous  to  which  is  found  in  all  languages.  The  periphrasis 
of  the  superlative  with  ofiodpa,  exceedingly,  [^&*?],  is  also  a  well-known 
Hebraism.]  In  the  description  of  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  Mary 
only,  the  mother  of  the  child,  is  mentioned.  Joseph  recedes  quite 
into  the  back-ground  throughout  the  whole  Gospel-history,  and  pre- 
sents no  perceptible  spiritual  character.  (The  reading  e«W,  saw, 
is  every  way  preferable  to  the  evpov,  found,  of  the  Textus  Receptus.) 
Two  things  are  distinctly  noticed  in  the  actions  of  the  Magi  ;  first, 
the  TTpocKvveiv,  pay  homage,  ivorsliip,  then  the  presenting  of  their 
gifts.  We  may  imagine  both  included  in  one  in  this  way,  that  they 

*  Ideler  (ut  sup.)  explains  this  of  the  approach,  or  dispersion  of  the  planets,  which 
seemed,  while  in  conjunction,  to  form  one  large  star. 

f  If  we  take  literally  the  preceding  account,  first  that  the  star  guided  them  to  Pales- 
tine, and  then  to  Bethlehem,  what  insuperable  difficulty  in  supposing  that  it  indicated 
the  house  ?  It  was  evidently  an  extraordinary,  probably  a  miraculous  phenomenon,  and 
there  seems  no  reason  for  receiving  one  part  of  the  narrative,  and  staggering  at  another. 
The  birth  of  Jesus  as  recorded  both  by  Matthew  and  Luke  is  signalized  by  many  miracles : 
and  assuredly  the  moral  significance  of  this  transaction,  as  homage  rendered  by  the 
Heathen  world  through  its  representatives  to  the  new-born  King  of  the  world,  forma 
quite  as  fitting  an  occasion  for  a  miracle  as  the  announcement  to  an  humble  company  of 
Jewish  shepherds. — K. 


190  MATTHEW  II.  10-12. 

desired  to  testify  their  dependence  in  the  presentation  itself.  The 
action  was  to  be  npoa^opd,  an  offering,  a  solemn  recognition  of  the 
superior  character  of  the  new-born  one,  as  also  the  prophecy  in 
Isaiah  Ix.  6,  intimates.  Upowcvviiaat,  to  pay  homage,  therefore, 
answering  to  the  Hebrew  ™hn»n>  is  no  proof,  so  far  as  the  words  go, 
of  the  view  entertained  by  the  Magi  of  the  young  child's  dignity. 
The  word  often  denotes  nothing  more  than  the  well-known  oriental 
form  of  political  homage.  Still  the  connexion  of  the  narrative  makes 
it  certain,  that  the  Magi  ascribed  a  spiritual  character  to  the  child  ; 
and  their  homage,  combined  with  the  ceremony  of  the  rrpootyopd, 
offering,  acquires  a  more  spiritual  meaning.  Only  we  must  not, 
as  before  observed,  by  any  means  ascribe  to  the  Magi  any  doctrinal 
ideas  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus  ;  but  only  a  dim  conception  of  the 
divine  power  accompanying  and  resting  on  him.  We  may  say,  they 
worshipped  God,  who  had  made  this  child  for  salvation  to  them 
also,  but  not  the  child. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  gifts  presented  to  the  child  (and  his 
mother),  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  conclude  from  the  fact  of  their 
being  Arabian  products,  that  the  Magi  came  from  Arabia ;  the 
articles  were  common  throughout  the  east,  as  being  necessary  to 
their  worship,  for  gold  also  was  among  the  gifts  usually  presented  to 
the  gods.  The  idea  of  many  expositors,  that  these  valuable  presents 
must  needs  be  brought  to  Mary  in  her  poverty,  to  aid  her  jour- 
ney into  Egypt  (ver.  13),  may  not  be  altogether  inadmissible  ;  the 
Gospel-history  shows  that,  in  after  life  also,  the  Saviour  committed 
himself  in  reference  to  his  bodily  support,  to  the  love  of  his  friends. 
(See  note  on  Luke  viii.  3.)  (The  term  Orjaavpog  treasure,  signifies,  like 
IS'IN,  Deut.  xxviii.  12,  "  vessel,"  "  place  of  keeping ;"  the  idea  of 
"what  is  kept" — "costly"  is  the  derived  one.  Aifiavog  -  ns'aV,  sig- 
nifies "  incense,"  the  produce  of  a  balsamic  plant  of  Arabia.  In  the 
Old  Testament  the  term  is  found  very  frequently,  because  incense  is 
so  often  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  sacrifices  ;  in  the  New  it 
occurs  only  once  more — viz.,  in  Rev.  xviii.  13.  Sfivpva  =  ifa,  myrrh, 
is  a  similar  product,  obtained  from  a  tree  like  the  acacia.  [Ex.  xxx. 
23  ;  Psalm  xlv.  8.]  Incense  and  myrrh  were  also  used  medicinally 
by  the  ancients  ;  but  such  a  use  of  the  presents  is  here  totally  inad- 
missible. On  the  history  of  the  Magi  in  general  see  Kleuker's  Bibl. 
Sympathieen,  S.  36,  ff.;  and  Hamann's  Kreuzziige  des  Philologen, 
Werke,  Th.  ii.,  S.  135,  ff.) 

Ver.  12. — As  above,  so  here  also,  we  should  observe  that  the 
thoughts  of  the  Magi,  produced  within  them  by  natural  reflection  on 
the  circumstances,  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  higher  impulse, 
which  induced  their  determination  not  to  return  to  Herod.  (Xp 
ri£eiv  signifies,  in  profane  authors,  "to  manage  public  affairs" — ' 
give  answers  and  commands  ;"  xPWar^£a^ai}  "  to  receive  commands." 


MATTHEW  II.  12-15.  191 

In  the  Hellenistic  Greek,  the  term  appears  in  the  same  signification, 
but  with  reference  to  divine  transactions  ;  xprj^ari^eiv,  "  to  give  di- 
vine commands,"  Heb.  xii.  25  ;  xpjifiari&odai,  "  to  receive  divine 
commands."  So  in  the  New  Testament,  ver.  22  of  this  chapter,  and 
elsewhere  ;  and  in  the  Old,  in  Jer.  xxvi.  2  ;  xxix.  18.  Lastly,  it 
means,  also,  merely  "to  call"  [Acts  xi.  26  ;  Kom.  vii.  3],  a  meaning 
quite  common  in  profane  writers.) 

Ver.  13,  14. — As  the  Saviour,  after  he  had  attained  to  the  full 
consciousness  of  divinity  (Gottesbeivusstseyri),  did  and  said  nothing 
of  himself,  but  always  at  the  instance  of  the  Father  (John  viii.  28), 
so  the  divine  agency  prevailed  among  the  circle  that  surrounded  him 
during  his  infancy,  and  before  this  consciousness  was  yet  fully  de- 
veloped. The  history  of  Jesus,  even  the  child  Jesus,  is  a  divine 
history.  By  divine  impulse,  therefore,  Joseph  brings  the  holy  child 
with  his  mother  to  Egypt.*  (On  the  appearance  of  the  angel  "in 
a  dream,"  [/car'  ovap,]  see  i.  20.  Ver.  13,  lodt,  be,  is  imperative  from 
et{j,i,  and  not  to  be  confounded  with  a  similar  form  from  olda.  ~E,lvai 
is  to  be  taken  here,  as  rrn  is  also  used,  in  the  sense  of  "being  continu- 
ously"— i.  e.,"  remaining."  "  Till  I  shall  tell  thee"  intimates  another 
appearance  to  be  looked  for.  The  whole  narrative  of  the  flight  indi- 
cates haste  and  secrecy  [wicrog,  by  night,  ver.  14]  in  their  removal. 
The  expression,  TO  -rraiSiov  nal  rfjv  \w\Tiqa  avrov,  the  child  and  its  moth- 
er, delicately  intimates  that  Joseph  was  only  in  the  place  of  a  father.) 
Tradition  names  Matarea  as  the  place  where  Jesus  is  said  to  have  re- 
mained with  Mary  in  Egypt.  The  temple  of  Onias  (at  Leontopolis) 
stood  in  the  neighbourhood — a  circumstance  which  made  many  Jews 
resort  thither. 

Ver.  15. — The  observation,  that  Jesus  remained  with  his  mother 
in  Egypt  till  the  death  of  Herod,  is,  as  a  chronological  date,  not  un- 
important, since  the  death  of  Herod,  and  the  beginning  of  Arche- 
laus's  reign  (ver.  22),  can  be  accurately  determined.  True,  the 
date  is  not  void  of  uncertainty  from  the  circumstance,  that  the 
Evangelist  does  not  remark,  either  how  old  the  child  Jesus  was  at 
the  time  his  mother  fled  with  him  into  Egypt,  or  how  long  he  was 
there ;  nor  do  the  passages,  Luke  iii.  1,  23,  remove  the  uncertainty. 
Yet  thus  much  is  certain  from  this  passage,  that  Jesus  must  have 
been  born  before  the  death  of  Herod ;  and  agreeably  to  this  fact, 
the  vulgar  Christian  era  is  at  least  three  years  too  late.  (See  Paulus 
in  his  Commentary  on  the  passage.)  The  investigations  of  Sancle- 
mente  and  Ideler,  as  was  observed,  place  the  birth  of  Christ  as  long 
as  six  years  before  our  era. — But  with  respect  to  the  flight  into 
Egypt,  the  Evangelist  refers  to  an  Old  Testament  prophecy — viz., 
Hosea  xi.  1.  The  Greek  words  in  Matthew  differ  from  the  text  of 

*  On  the  flight  into  Egypt,  see  Schleiermacher's  excellent  sermon  in  the  Magazine 
edited  by  him,  JRhdr  and  Schudero/,  vol.  vi.,  Madgeburg,  1829,  S.  301,  ff. 


192  MATTHEW  II.  15, 16. 

the  LXX.  in  a  remarkable  manner ;  the  latter  reads,  £!•  ALJVTTTOV 
fjiereKa^eaa  TO,  TEKva  avrov  sc.  rov  'I<rpar//l,  out  of  Egypt  I  called  Ms  sons. 
In  this  form,  the  passage  was  wholly  useless  for  the  purpose  of  the 
quotation  ;  Matthew,  therefore,  follows  the  Hebrew  text,  which  has 
the  singular  (^aV  ^Nn;?.)  We  see,  hence,  that  in  the  Greek  text  of 
this  Gospel,  Matthew  treats  the  quotation  with  an  independence 
which  we  should  not  look  for  in  an  ordinary  translator.  (See  Introd. 
§  4.)  In  its  connexion  in  the  prophecy,  the  passage  evidently  refers 
to  the  recall  of  the  people  out  of  Egypt  by  Moses  ;  the  people  being 
regarded  as  one  man,  are  called  God's  son — God's  first-born.  (Ex  iv. 
22  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  9.)  This  passage,  however,  the  Evangelist  regards  in 
so  far  a  prophecy,  as  Israel  after  the  flesh  is  spiritually  represented 
in  the  person  of  Christ.  The  fortunes  of  the  earthly  Israel  are  a 
type  of  the  fortunes  of  the  Messiah,  in  whom  Israel  is  first  found  in 
his  true  essence.  (See  1  Cor.  x.  1,  ff. ;  Gal.,  iii.  28.)  If,  on  the 
principle  that  every  author  is  to  be  explained  by  himself,  we  view 
this  idea  as  one  that  was  familiar  to  the  New  Testament  writers, 
quite  apart  from  its  intrinsic  and  eternal  truth,  we  obtain  at  least 
the  advantage  of  being  able  to  proceed  more  simply  and  naturally  in 
the  exposition. 

Ver.  16. — The  lengthened  absence  of  the  Magi  now  rouses  the 
wrath  of  the  tyrant  Herod.  He  sees  that  he  is  deceived,  and  hopes, 
by  means  of  a  revolting  barbarity,  to  destroy  the  dangerous  child. 
To  be  certain  of  not  missing  his  aim,  he  causes  all  the  children  in 
Bethlehem  under  two  years  of  age  to  be  killed. 

('Eprai£g«>  means,  first,  "  to  deride,"  "  to  jeer  at ;"  then,  to 
"deceive,"  "to  beguile,"  since  deceiving  often  involves  derision. 
Qvpovodai  =  nnh,  to  burn  with  rage,  does  not  occur  elsewhere.  The 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  town,  the  "  borders"  [dpta  =  enVo», 
suburbs,  precincts],  were  included  in  Herod's  cruel  order.) 

The  relation  in  which  this  note  of  time  stands  to  the  account  of 
the  Magi  (ver.  7),  makes  it  probable  that  the  star  appeared  before  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  and  that  the  Magi  did  not  arrive  immediately  after 
his  birth  (see  note  on  Luke  ii.  40) ;  in  which  case  Herod -might  think 
it  necessary,  in  order  to  be  sure,  to  extend  the  limit  to  within  a  little 
of  two  years.  (Ate-nfc,  bimus,  two-year  old;  dirb  disrovg  stands  for 
tiier&v,  from  the  two-year  old  children  downwards.)  The  fact  of  the 
murder  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem  has  been  doubted,  because  nei- 
ther Josephus  nor  any  other  historian  makes  mention  of  it  ;*  and 
further,  because  it  is  a  cruelty  scarcely  conceivable  even  for  a  Herod, 
and  that  too  with  no  sufficient  motive,  as  simpler  means  for  accom- 
plishing the  removal  of  the  child  would  have  suggested  themselves  to 

*  Macrobius  (Saturn,  ii.  4)  mentions  the  occurrence,  but  mixe3  it  up  with  the  murder 
of  Herod's  own  son — a  confusion  which  might  easily  occur,  as  no  other  royal  offspring 
could  be  thought  of,  who  could  have  been  the  object  of  Herod's  persecutions. 


MATTHEW  II.  16-20.  193 

him.  But,  in  the  first  place,  as  respects  the  silence  of  the  historians 
on  an  event  so  unimportant  in  a  political  point  of  view  (the  only  view 
taken  by  all  ancient  historians),  as  the  death  of  some  children  in  a 
small  Jewish  town  must  have  seemed  to  them ;  it  is  the  less  surpris- 
ing, because,  according  to  verse  7,  the  whole  matter  was  kept  secret 
as  to  its  real  connexion.  Then,  too,  the  murder  of  a  few  children  was 
lost  among  the  atrocities  of  a  Herod,  as  a  drop  is  lost  in  the  sea. 
The  number  of  those  slaughtered  on  this  occasion  has  been  errone- 
ously thought  to  be  great,  and  the  deed  itself  a  horrible  massacre  ; 
whereas,  in  the  nature  of  things,  there  could  be  but  a  few  children 
under  two  years  in  a  little  town  like  Bethlehem,  and  these  might 
be  put  out  of  the  way  without  any  stir.  Lastly,  the  remark  that 
the  affair  is  without  adequate  motive,  since  Herod  could  easily  have 
sent  secret  messengers  to  accompany  the  Magi,  appears  indeed  to  be 
not  altogether  unfounded.  Yet  we  must  consider,  that  we  are  not 
to  transfer  modern  police  arrangements  to  antiquity ;  and,  again, 
that,  according  to  the  king's  intention,  the  birth  of  the  King  of 
the  Jews  was  to  be  kept  a  secret,  and  he  thought  he  might  repose 
full  confidence  in  the  Magi ;  and,  lastly,  that  in  the  history  of  all 
times  there  occur  unaccountable  oversights,  which  shew  that  a 
higher  hand  overrules  history. 

Ver.  17,  18. — The  Evangelist  finds  in  this  event  also  the  fulfil- 
ment of  a  prophecy,  Jer.  xxxi.  15.  The  prophet's  language  refers, 
in  its  connexion,  to  the  carrying  away  of  the  Israelites  by  way  of 
Kama,  to  Babylon,  by  Nebuzaradan  (Jer.  xl.  1);  and  Rachel, 
Jacob's  beloved  wife,  the  progenitrix  of  Israel,  is  represented  as 
weeping  over  this  misfortune.  This  circumstance  of  the  mother 
bewailing  her  unhappy  children,  was  regarded  by  the  Evangelist  as 
repeated  in  the  murder  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem,  and,  indeed, 
with  increased  force,  because  it  was  the  Messiah,  in  whose  neighbour- 
hood, and  on  whose  account,  this  aflliction  happened.  While,  in 
general,  the  forefather  of  the  people  is  mentioned,  the  mother  is  here; 
brought  forward  as  bewailing  those  who  were  sacrificed  to  save  the  life 
of  the  Messiah,  because  sympathizing  sorrow  for  the  pains  of  her  tender  • 
charge,  shews  itself  more  naturally  in  the  mother.  The  words  of  the. 
quotation  deviate  again  from  the  translation  of  the  LXX.,  yet  not  so 
as  to  discover  an  independent  construction  of  the  original ;  the  pas- 
sage is  quoted  from  memory. 

(<l>«w?,  voice,  =^  is  here  lamentation,  cry  of  sorrow.  The  town 
Rama,  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  lay  scarcely  a-half  day's  journey 
from  Bethlehem  (Jud.  xix.  2,  9,  13).  It  might,  therefore,  be  put 
for  Bethlehem  itself,  as,  in  specifying  this  place,  it  was  only  intended 
to  designate  the  land  of  Palestine  in  general.  Besides  which,  Rachel 
was  buried  in  the  neighbourhood  (Gen.  xxxv.  19  ;  xlviiu  7) ;  so  that 

VOL.  I.— 13 


194  MATTHEW  II.  20-22. 

it  seemed  as  if  the  ancestral  mother  of  the  nation  was  disturbed  in 
her  peaceful  grave  by  the  cruelty  of  Herod.) 

Ver.  19,  20. — The  return  from  Eygpt  is  again  instigated  by  spe- 
cial divine  admonition  ;  and  the  death  of  the  tyrant  is  assigned  as 
the  determining  circumstance.  The  words  redv/iitaoi  yap  K.  r.  A.,  for 
they  are  dead,  &c.,  contain  a  reference  to  Exod.  iv.  19,  where  noth- 
ing but  the  formula  Iva  Tthrjpudq,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  is  want- 
ing to  make  it  completely  parallel  with  the  previous  references  to 
Old  Testament  passages.  What  was  there  said  of  Moses  and  his 
flight  from  Pharaoh,  Matthew  interprets  in  reference  to  Jesus  ;  so 
that  Moses  appears  here  as  a  type  of  him.  The  plural  oL  fyrovvres, 
they  that  sought,  applies  to  Herod  as  the  representative  of  all  God's 
enemies  in  general.  (The  expression  "  land  of  Israel" — not  "  land 
of  Judah" — readily  suggests  Galilee,  which,  according  to  verse  22, 
the  parents  of  Jesus  chose  for  their  dwelling.  Zrjrelv  TTJV  ipv%TJv,  to 
seek  the  life,  corresponds  to  ws'ns  *c3-) 

Ver.  21. — The  time  of  the  return  of  Jesus  from  Egypt  is  not 
indeed  stated  ;  but,  as  it  was  an  event  consequent  on  Herod's 
death,*  his  residence  there  cannot  have  been  of  long  continuance. 
This  circumstance  of  itself,  therefore,  is  sufficient  to  overthrow  the 
hypothesis  that  Jesus  obtained  his  knowledge  from  Egyptian  philo- 
sophers, which  stands,  too,  in  absolute  contradiction  to  the  idea  of  a 
Saviour.  It  must  have  been  in  very  early  childhood  that  Jesus  re- 
turned to  Palestine,  at  which  period  the  depths  of  Egyptian  wisdom 
cannot  have  been  accessible  to  him. 

Ver.  22. — On  their  return,  report  represented  Archelaus  to  the 
holy  family  as  not  less  cruel  than  his  father  Herod.  They  chose 
Galilee,  therefore,  for  their  residence,  where  Antipas  reigned.  Au- 
gustus, who  confirmed  the  testament  of  Herod,  appointed  Archelaus 
Ethnarch  of  Judea,  Idumea,  and  Samaria  ;  Philip  obtained  Batanea 
and  Auranitis  ;  Antipas,  Galilee  and  Perea.f  Archelaus  held  his 
dominion  only  nine  years.  At  the  expiration  of  that  period,  Au- 
gustus deposed  him,  banished  him  to  Vienna  (in  Gaul),  and  made 
Judea  a  Roman  province.  (Joseplius,  Ant.  xvii.  10,  12  ;  xviii.  1.) 

(ra/UAa/'a  —  V^J)  ^Y^*.  signifies,  like  nss,  circuit,  district.  The 
name  in  full  is  s^an  V^Va,  yakikaia  dl/lo^uAtov,  or  y.  rdv  sdvtiv,  Ga- 
lilee of  the  Gentiles.  [1  Mace.  v.  15  ;  Matth.  iv.  15  ;  Isa.  ix.  1.]  As 
in  this  district  heathenism  was  much  mixed  with  Judaism,  the  strict 
exclusive  character  of  the  Jewish  people  appeared  in  a  milder  form  ; 
but  for  this  very  reason  the  inhabitants  of  Galilee  were  despised 
among  the  rest  of  the  Jews.  [Matth.  xxvi.  69  ;  John  i.  46  ;  vii.  52.) 
According  to  Joseplius  [de  Bell.  Jud.  iii.  2],  the  district  was  divided 

*  On  the  death  of  Herod,  seo  Euseb.  H.  E.  i.  6,  8  ;  and,  in  respect  of  the  chronology, 
the  detailed  discussion  in  Dr.  Paulus1  Exegetisches  Handbuch,  i.,  H.  i.,  S.  227,  ff. 
f  On  this  point,  seo  the  first  chronological  table  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 


MATTHEW  II.  23.  195 

into  Upper  and  Lower  Galilee  ;  the  former  bordered  on  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  the  latter  on  the  Jordan  and  the  Lake  of  Gennesaret. 
Tiberias  first,  and  afterwards  Sephoris,  was  the  capital  of  Galilee. 
'EKEI,  there,  is  put  for  titEias,  thither,  like  taw  for  n»y.  So,  often,  in 
the  New  Testament.) 

Ver.  23. — In  Galilee,  the  parents  of  Jesus  took  up  their  residence 
in  the  town  of  Nazareth.  (The  preposition  elg  is  to  be  connected  with 
eWtiv,  and  not,  therefore,  to  be  confounded  with  iv.  When  iv  is 
joined  with  words  of  motion,  or  e/?  with  words  denoting  rest,  we  are 
not  to  suppose  an  interchange  of  particles,  but  rather  that  the  idea 
of  previous  or  subsequent  rest  or  motion  is  to  be  supplied,  according 
as  the  case  requires.  See  Winer's  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament, 
translated  by  Agnew  and  Ebbeke,  §  51.)  This  little  town  of  Gali- 
lee, of  which  neither  the  Old  Testament  nor  Josephus  makes  mention, 
was  situated  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulun,  not  far  from  Capernaum,  on  a  hill 
(Luke  iv.  29)  some  miles  distance  from  Tabor.  The  derivation  of  the 
name  from  1x3,  bush,  shrub  (Hengstenberg  Christol.  vol.  ii.,  1,  ff.)  is 
incorrect,  since  (comp.  Matth.  1,  and  Luke  3),  the  £  corresponds  to  T. 
Bengcl  derives  it  from  ITS,  a  crown.  In  this  choice  of  the  town  of 
Nazareth  as  the  residence  for  the  mother  and  child,  the  Evan- 
gelist sees  also  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament  predictions  ; 
he  connects  this  with  the  name  Na^wpaZof,  Nazarene,  which  was 
given  to  the  Saviour  from  his  residence  at  Nazareth.  But  as  there 
is  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  where  the  Messiah  is  so  called, 
the  meaning  of  this  reference  is  obscure.  Some  have  supposed 
the  Nazarite  vow  to  be  intended,  and  have  imagined  in  this  place 
a  paronomasia  between  the  name  of  the  town  and  the  word  ITT; 
(Numb.  vi.  1).  But,  in  tla.Q  first  place,  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
Saviour's  character  to  compare  him  with  a  Jewish  Nazarite, 
because  his  life  was  not,  like  that  of  John  the  Baptist,  marked  by  a 
rigid  adherence  to  legal  ceremonies  ;  and  then  the  Nazarene  is  called 
in  Greek  No^patof,  less  frequently  Na£apaZof,  or  Nafypalog,  while 
the  inhabitant  of  Nazareth  is  called  Na^op^vd^,  or  Na^wpaZof .  (See 
Schleusner  in  his  Lexicon  to  the  LXX.)  It  is  quite  as  unten- 
able to  refer  to  the  term  ixs,  shoot,  branch,  by  which  the  Mes- 
siah, as  a  descendant  of  David,  is  frequently  denominated* — 
e.  g.,  Isa.  xi.  1.  Had  the  Evangelist  so  intended  it,  he  would 
have  quoted  a  distinct  passage  from  the  prophets,  where  this  term 
occurs,  as  he  did  in  the  former  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament, 
But  he  could  not,  in  that  case,  have  employed  the  formula  "  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled/'  for  there  is  no  connexion  between  the  name  iss, 
shoot,  and  the  dwelling  in  Nazareth.  In  our  view  of  this  passage 
we  must,  therefore,  be  guided  by  the  expression  prjOw  did  r&vnQofyr\r&v, 

*  It  was  in  this  way  that  the  learned  Nazarene  Jewish  Christians  explained  the  quo- 
tation to  Jerome.    See  Hieronymi  comm.  ad  loc.  Jes.  xL  1. 


196  MATTHEW  II.  23. 

spoken  by  the  prophets.  (The  reading  did  rov  irpoQiJTov  is  obviously 
a  mere  correction  without  critical  authority.)  The  plural  indicates 
that  the  Evangelist  had  not  any  single  quotation  in  view,  but  meant 
only  to  adduce  a  collective  citation  ;  and  the  article  indicating  a 
reference  to  all  the  prophets,  or  some  in  particular,  whom  Matthew 
supposed  to  be  known.  Accordingly,  the  view  becomes  most  proba- 
ble, that  the  Evangelist  had  regard  to  the  fact,  that  the  Nazarenes 
were  despised  by  the  nation.  In  that  case  he  would  have  those 
passages  in  view  in  which  the  Messiah  is  portrayed  in  his  humilia- 
tion— as,  e.  g.,  Ps.  xxii. ;  Isa.  liii.  [The  general  prediction  that  the 
Messiah  should  appear,  not  as  a  celebrated  ruler,  but  as  a  despised, 
humble  man,  Matthew  reproduces  in  this  concrete  form  :  "  The 
prophets  have  predicted  that  he  should  be  a  genuine  Nazarene  (a 
despised  one)  ; — that  he  should  be  what  the  Nazarenes  in  fact  are, 
and  what  he,  as  Nazarene,  has  really  been."]  An  etymological  allu- 
sion to  n«:t3,  the  despised  one  (from  -nt,)  may  be  combined  with  this 
view,  and  is  not  improbable,  particularly  on  the  supposition  of  a 
Hebrew  original  of  the  Gospel.  The  endeavour  of  Matthew  to  re- 
present Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  pre- 
dictions, is  most  plainly  evidenced  even  in  these  first  chapters.'*  As 
he  wrote  for  Jews,  it  was  his  chief  aim  to  prove  the  connexion  of  the 
various  events  at  the  birth  of  Jesus  with  the  important  testimonies 
of  the  Old  Testament.  (On  naheiodai,  see  note  on  Luke  i.  32.) 

If  now,  at  the  close  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew,  we 
glance  at  the  objections  which  have  been  raised  against  their  genu- 
ineness, we  may  take  it  for  granted  that,  in  our  day,  they  may  be 
regarded  as  set  aside.  No  external  reasons  can  be  adduced  for  the 
opinion,  that  these  chapters  did  not  form  part  of  the  original  Gospel, 
since  it  is  proved  that  the  "  Gospel  «a#'  'EjSpawvf,  according  to  the 
Hebrews"  contained  the  history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus.  (See 
the  Author's  History  of  the  Gospels,  p.  73,  76.)  The  Ebionites, 
indeed,  had  not  the  first  chapters  in  their  edition  of  that  apo- 
cryphal Gospel ;  but  the  fact  of  their  having  omitted  them  con- 
firms their  genuineness.  (See  Epiph.  haer.  xxx.  13.)  And  with 
respect  to  the  internal  evidences,  Gersdorf  (Sprachcharacteristik, 
S.  38,  ff.)  has  shewn  convincingly  the  affinity  of  the  style  which 
prevails  in  the  first  chapters  with  that  of  the  following  parts  ;  al- 
though it  must  be  admitted  that  Fritzsche  (Excursus  iii.  in  Matth.) 
has  here  and  there  refuted  Gersdorf 's  remarks.  There  is  nothing 
left,  then,  to  give  any  colour  to  these  doubts,  except  the  doctrinal 
objections  taken  against  the  contents  ;  but  this  reason  will  never 
be  urged  by  judicious  critics  against  the  genuineness  of  the  first 

*  De  Wette  is  wrong  in  assuming,  contrary  to  his  other  declarations,  a  double  sense ; 
— the  reference,  according  to  him.  is  first  to  the  town  of  Nazareth,  and  the  residence 
there ;  and  then,  further,  to  the  word  153. 


LUKE  I.  1.  197 

two  chapters,  as,  at  most,  it  could  only  be  brought  against  the 
credibility  of  the  events  narrated,  not  against  the  genuineness  of 
this  part  of  the  work,  since  the  Evangelist,  in  the  subsequent 
parts,  exhibits  the  same  fundamental  views  which  have  given  tone 
and  character  to  the  first  chapters.  Moreover,  as  reference  is 
subsequently  made  (see  iii.  1 ;  iv.  23),  to  the  preceding  part,  the 
first  chapters  are  manifestly  seen  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the 
Gospel.0  Precisely  the  same  observations  apply  to  the  arguments 
urged  against  the  genuineness  of  the  first  chapters  of  Luke.  (For 
the  Literature  on  the  subject,  see  Kuinoelii  coinm.  in  Luc.,  vol.  ii., 
p.  232.)  Here,  also,  all  external  evidence  is  wanting ;  since  the 
character  of  the  Mavcionite  Gospel  is  a  testimony,  not  against,  but 
for  their  genuineness,  because  Marcion  omitted  the  early  chapters, 
which  he  found  in  the  canonical  Gospel  of  Luke.  (Tertull.  adv. 
Marc.  iv.  7.)  No  internal  reason  can  be  adduced,  except  the  mira- 
culous character  of  the  events  which  they  record — a  character  which 
agrees  perfectly  with  that  of  the  whole.  We  shall  presently  treat 
particularly  of  the  contradictions  which  appear  to  exist  between  the 
accounts  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  in  the  history  of  the  childhood  of 
Jesus  ;  but  on  the  ground  occupied  by  our  opponents,  even  in  case 
they  were  irreconcileable,  they  would  furnish  ground  of  argument, 
not  against  the  genuineness  of  the  early  chapters,  but  only  against 
the  credibility  of  the  history. 


SECOND  SECTION.— LUKE'S  ACCOUNT. 

CHAPTERS   I.   AND  II. 


§   1.    PROEMIUM. 

(Luke  i.  1-4.)  x^, 

THE  four  verses  with  which  Luke  opens  his  work  (consisting  of 
two  parts,  see  Acts  i.  1),  are  worthy  of  notice  in  more  than  one 
respect.  As  regards  the  style,  we  perceive  that  the  Evangelist's 
own  style,  which  is  pure  Greek,  as  the  first  period  shews,  differs 
from  the  Hebraising  style  apparent  in  the  subsequent  part,  where 
Luke  communicates  documents,  whether  unaltered  or  worked  up, 
with  which  tradition  had  supplied  him.  His  words  next  inform 
us,  that,  previous  to  his  work,  other  records  of  the  Gospel-his- 
tory were  in  existence,  which,  however,  were  of  questionable  ac- 
curacy (dotydkeia,  i.  4)  ;  lastly,  he  indicates  the  sources  from  which 

V      *  Compare  the  Dissertation  of  J.  G.  Mulkr  (Trier.  1830),  which  defends  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  chapters. 


198  LUKE  I.  1. 

lie  drew,  the  principles  which  he  had  followed  in  the  composition  of 
his  work,  and  the  special  ohject  which  he  had  in  view.  The  con- 
struction of  the  Proemiuin  exhibits  a  certain  indefiniteness,  which 
gives  the  more  room  for  diverse  explanations,  as  they  are  influenced 
by  the  various  views  entertained  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels.  The 
sense  of  the  whole  passage  depends  on  where  the  apodosis  is  made 
to  begin  ;  it  may  begin  either  with  icadug  Trapedooav,  as  they  delivered 
them,  or  with  £6o!-e  nypoi,  it  seemed  good  also  to  me.  According  to 
the  latter  division,  the  words  "  as  they  delivered,"  etc.,  are  connected 
with  e-rre^Trep  TroAAo/,  forasmuch  as  many,  etc.,  and  contain  an  obser- 
vation on  the  quality  of  the  earlier  Gospel  records  ;  for  to  refer  them 
to  the  mere  existence  of  those  records,  as  if  Luke  had  not  personally 
known  these  older  works,  but  had  only  heard  of  them  by  na^ddoai^, 
is  evidently  forbidden  by  the  expression  "  eye-witnesses  from  the  be- 
ginning," which  necessarily  implies  a  tradition  respecting  the  history 
of  Jesus.*  Luke's  opinion  of  the  character  of  those  older  writings 
would,  in  that  case,  be  a  favourable  one,  since  he  claims  the  same 
sources  of  information  for  himself  (/taflwf  irapedooav  i\\ilv)  ;  a  supposi- 
tion which  would  very  well  agree  with  an  hypothesis,  according  to 
which  these  many  Gospels  were  shorter,  and  our  Gospels  more 
lengthened,  editions  of  the  same  original  Gospel.  But  as  (ver.  4) 
blame  is  plainly  imputed  to  the  TroAAot,  since  Luke  leads  Theophilus 
to  expect  historical  certainty  nowhere  but  in  his  Gospel,  which 
could  not  therefore  be  found  in  the  accounts  of  the  early  narrators,  f 
it  might  be  thought  necessary  to  prefer  that  division  of  the  sentence 
which  places  the  beginning  of  the  apodosis  at  KaBug  iraqcdooav  r^ilv 
K.  T.  A.  In  that  way,  the  tradition  of  the  eye-witnesses  would  refer 
only  to  Luke's  narrative  ;  and  his  narrative  would  stand  distin- 
guished from  the  earlier  ones.  But  here,  again,  we  are  met,  ftrst, 
by  the  circumstance  that,  grammatically,  the  apodosis  is  more  de- 
finitely pointed  out  in  £do£e  na^oi,  than  at  icaOtig,  since  KO,\IOL  appears 
evidently  in  contrast  with  the  TroAAot  ;  besides,  too,  the  change  from 
T^jueZ?  to  <tyw  is  remarkable.  It  is,  therefore,  undoubtedly  most  cor- 
rect to  begin  the  apodosis  with  edo|e  ;  but  to  join  the  clause,  nad&q 
Traptdoaav  K.  r.  A.,  not  to  dvard^aoQai  —  so  that  it  would  contain  the 
description  of  the  quality  of  the  sources  used  by  the  TroAAot  —  but  to 
Trpay/mra  iv  i]^iiv  ueTrAT/po^opT/jueva.  In  accordance  with  this  construc- 
tion, the  f'auv  after  na^idooav  would  be  quite  parallel  with  iv  r'miv 
a,  and  the  meaning  would  be,  "  since  many  have  un- 


*  Bug  (Introd.  p.  387,  ff.,  Fosdick's  Translation)  interprets  xaduf  iraptdoaav  "  as  the 
eye-witnesses  put  them  —  i.  e.,  the  writings  of  the  ;many"  into  our  hands;"  an  interpre- 
tation which  stands  or  falls  with  the  opinion  of  this  learned  author,  that  the  writings  of 
the  "  many"  are  works  of  the  apostles. 

f  Thus  Origen  explains  it  correctly  in  Luc.  Horn.  1.  Quod  ait  "  conati  sunt"  latcntem 
habet  accusationem  eorum,  qui  absque  gratia  spiritus  sancti  ad  scribenda  evangelia,  pro- 
eilierunt. 


LUKE  I.  1.  199 

dertaken  to  put  forth  a  narrative  of  the  events  which  are  regarded 
among  us  (members  of  the  Christian  church)  as  historically  es- 
tablished, just  as  the  eye-witnesses  have  reported  them  to  us  (to 
myself  and  all  members  of  that  communion) ;  so  I  also  have  deter- 
mined/' etc.  Thus,  therefore,  the  events  only  appear  perfectly  as- 
certained by  the  tradition  of  the  church.  The  quality  of  the  nar- 
ratives is  left  at  first  undetermined  ;  but  is  afterwards  represented  as 
suspicious  by  the  contrast  exhibited  between  Luke  and  the  "  many," 
and  particularly  by  ver.  4.*  This  view  agrees  best  with  the  opinion 
which  we  endeavoured  to  establish  in  the  Introduction — viz.,  that  the 
apostolical  tradition  concerning  the  character  and  history  of  Jesus 
was  concentrated  in  our  four  canonical  Gospels,  and  that  all  older 
writings  of  that  sort  bore  more  or  less  of  an  apocryphal  character. 

Ver.  1. — The  words  nokhol  Irre^ei^riaav  dirjyrjatv  dvardt-aoBai,  many 
have  undertaken  to  set  forth  a-  narrative,  can  hardly  be  understood 
of  single  documents  relating  to  single  portions  of  the  Gospel-history 
(which  from  this  passage  are  usually,  though  not  very  appropriately, 
called  diegeses),  since  the  use  of  the  singular  suggests  only  connected 
narratives  (whether  more  or  less  full)  of  the  entire  Gospel-history. f 
Indeed  dvardt-aadaL,  to  arrange,  set  forth  in  order,  leads  to  the  sup- 
position, that  the  "  many"  themselves  composed  their  memoirs  from 
shorter  records.  But  to  what  writings  Luke  refers  can  not  be  de- 
termined ;  for,  as  he  most  probably  was  not  acquainted  with  our 
canonical  Gospels  (see  Introd.  §  3),  we  are  left  to  imagine  the  works 
of  the  "  many"  to  have  been  apocryphal  attempts  to  delineate  the 
life  of  Jesus,  which,  however,  for  want  of  historical  information,  can- 
not be  more  accurately  characterized.  The  Trpay/zara  iv  rjfuv  TTETT^IJ- 
poQoprjfieva,  things  fully  believed  among  us,  are  mentioned  as  the  sub- 
ject of  the  writings  of  the  "  many."  As  this  Proemium  must  be 
viewed  as  introductory  to  Luke's  whole  work  (the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles being  regarded  as  a  second  part  of  the  Gospel),  the  expression 
applies  to  more  than  the  period  of  our  Lord's  earthly  sojourn — it 
embraces  also  the  progress  of  the  church  up  to  the  time  when  Luke 

*  Since  the  words  "  as  they  delivered,"  etc.,  depend  on  the  words  "  undertook  to  set 
forth  in  order"  (i-xt%t.ipriaav  dvarti^aadai),  they  seem  to  me  by  no  means  to  contain  the 
positive  praise  which  Olshausen  finds  in  them,  and  which  he  regards  as  apparently  incon- 
sistent with  the  lurking  censure  of  the  concluding  words.  They  seem  to  me  rather  to  de- 
scribe the  way  in  which  those  narratives  were  produced :  and  thus  the  necessity  of  con- 
necting the  Koflwf  as,  with  treir%qpofopTifi£va  instead  of  with  ^ap^oaav,  disappears.  Many 
(Christians  of  the  class  for  whom  Luke  wrote)  had  made  the  attempt  to  record  the  Gos- 
pel histories,  as  they  had  heard  them  orally,  and  after  the  departure  of  the  eye-witnesses, 
who  had  been  their  informants.  Luke,  far  from  blaming  them  for  this,  recognizes  the 
need  of  writing  to  give  definiteness  and  permanence  tp  the  Gospel  narratives.  He  finds 
these  scattered  sketches  from  memory  imperfect :  they  furnish — precisely  because  they  are 
scattered  and  fragmentary — no  certainty  ;  and  hence,  he,  having  examined  every  thing 
carefully  from  its  beginning,  has  determined  to  compose  a  connected  history  of  the  events. 
(See  more  fully  in  my  Kritik  der  ev.  Geschichte  2te  AfifL  §  135.)— [E 

•f-  But  see  above,  note:  diriyrjais  means  simply  "narrative." — [K. 


200  LUKE  I.  1,  2. 

wrote.  But  when  the  Evangelist  immediately  adds,  in  the  words 
7re7r/l?7po0op77^eva  &v  rtfuv,  surely  believed,  established,  etc.,  a  remark  on 
the  credibility  of  the  events  (those  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  well  as 
those  which  happened  afterwards  in  the  early  church),  it  is  probably 
because  their  character  is  such,  that  their  miraculous  form  appears 
at  first  sight  to  contradict  their  credibility. 

(The  signification  "  happen,"  "  take  place,"  cannot  be  assigned 
either  to  Trtypotyopelodai,  or  to  t&«,  which  some  have  thought  to  re- 
semble it.  IIl??po0op£w  has,  in  the  first  instance,  the  same  mean- 
ing as  Tr/lT/poy ;  then,  as  transferred  to  what  is  spiritual,  "  to  afford 
conviction,  certainty."*  So  it  is  found,  particularly  in  the  writings 
of  Paul,  who  uses  irtypofopia  as  parallel  with  mffTig^e-noiOrjoi^,  belief, 
persuasion.  The  participle  Tre-nvlT/po^opT/fteva  is  therefore  equivalent 
to  fte(3aia,  established,  certain,  and  should  be  connected  with  £v  r\\tiv. 
Immediately  after  the  notice  of  the  firm  conviction  of  the  members 
of  the  church  of  the  important  events  [which  the  nokXoi  had  made 
the  subject  of  their  writings],  there  follows  appropriately  the  men- 
tion of  the  vouchers  for  them.) 

Ver.  2. — As  vouchers,  Luke  mentions  the  ol  an'  ap%?fr  avroTrrai, 
the  eye-witnesses  from  the  beginning,  and  the  vTrrj^erat  Xoyov,  minis- 
ters of  the  word.  As  the  Evangelist  begins  with  the  birth  of  John 
the  Baptist  and  Jesus,  we  ought  not  to  limit  the  ''from  the  begin- 
ning" to  the  time  of  Christ's  active  ministry ;  Luke  meant  to  de- 
lineate the  whole  new  phenomenon  from  its  commencement.f  The 
"eye-witnesses"  in  this  place  are  doubtless  Mary  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  and  the  other  members  of  the  families  of  whose  private  his- 
tory the  first  chapters  treat ;  but,  for  the  subsequent  history  of 
Jesus  and  of  the  church,  the  apostles  also  are  eye-witnesses.  Uapsdoaav, 
delivered,  is,  accordingly,  to  be  understood  of  oral  as  well  as  written 
tradition,  since  most  probably  the  family  information,  as  conveyed 
to  us  in  the  early  chapters,  is  founded  on  written  records.  It  is  in- 
correct to  take  the  "  eye-witnesses"  to  mean  the  apostles,  and  the 
Adyov,  ministers  of  the  luord,  their  assistants  ;  for  though 
,  minister,  is  used,  it  is  true,  of  apostolical  assistants  (see 
Acts  xiii.  5,  although  the  reading  there  is  not  quite  certain),  yet 
vm/peTT/f  Adyoi),  sc.  eeov,  minister  of  the  word,  sc.  of  God,  is  never  so 
used.  This  name  designates  the  apostles  and  all  teachers  in  the 
church  in  common  ;  the  expression  does  not  therefore  indicate  a 
new  class  of  witnesses,  but  only  describes  the  same  witnesses  more 
fully.  In  reference  to  one  portion  of  the  events  which  Luke  is  about 
to  describe,  they  were  merely  eye-witnesses  ;  but  in  reference  to  the 

*  De  Wette's  assertion,  that  n^po^opeu,  in  this  sense,  can  be  used  of  persons  only,  is 
indefensible. 

f  De  Wette  asserts  boldly,  that  the  narrative  of  the  Gospel-history  usually  began  with 
Christ's  entrance  on  his  official  work.  Why  ?  Because  Mark  (i.  1)  begins  so  I 


LUKE  I.  .2-4.  201 

other  (later)  portion,  they  were  themselves  the  acting  parties,  so 
that  there  they  bore  witness  of  themselves. 

Ver.  3. — Luke  specifies  three  points,  in  which  he  explains,  as  it 
were,  his  historical  method  ;  the  terms  dvuOev^from  the  beginning, 
ekpfjQu^,  exactly,  accurately,  and  «a0e£?fc,  in  order,  here  come  under 
notice.  The  first  two  words  apply  to  his  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
sources  of  information,  the  last  to  the  narrative  itself,  (napa/co- 
hovOeiv ,  follow  along,  denotes  the  mind's  action  in  following — living 
over  again,  as  it  were — the  whole  train  of  events,  in  connexion  with 
a  thorough  examination  and  testing  of  the  sources.)  In  the  works 
of  the  "many,"  the  opposites  of  all  the  three  points  are  tacitly  im- 
plied. In  the  first  place,  as  to  dvuOev,  from  the  beginning,  it  refers 
to  air'  ap%//f ,  ver.  2  ;  Luke  meant  to  bring  out  to  view,  and  fully  un- 
fold the  earliest  germs  of  this  new  phenomenon  ;  of  course,  the 
rrdvra,  all  things,  are  only  to  be  understood  as  implying  all  that  ap- 
peared to  Luke  to  belong  to  the  description  of  the  whole  ;  in  the 
selection  of  facts,  each  writer  naturally  displayed  his  individual 
characteristics.  But  by  no  means  ought  Trdot  to  be  referred  to  avroTr- 
rai ;  it  belongs  to  the  Trpayjuara,  on  account  of  which  alone  the  per- 
sons are  mentioned.  'A/cp^cDc,  exactly,  accurately,  characterizes  the 
historical  investigation  as  an  intelligent  and  careful  process — opposed 
to  the  uncritical  method  of  the  apocryphal  writings.  Lastly,  KaOeZrjg, 
in  order,  can  apply  only  to  the  chronology,  as  in  Acts  xi.0  (In 
Acts  xviii.  23,  it  is  used  of  local  contiguity.)  The  plan  of  the  book 
shows  that  Luke  intended  to  observe  that  order  in  the  main  ;  but 
this  intention,  it  must  be  confessed,  does  not  extend  to  the  very 
minute  chronological  details,  since  in  them  he  seems  to  have  deviated 
from  the  order  of  time.  (See  Introd.  §  7,  and  the  commentary  on 
Luke  ix.  51.) 

Ver.  4. — The  laying  down  of  these  historical  principles  was  in- 
tended to  give  historical  certainty  and  warrant  (da(f>dkeia)  to  The- 
ophilus,  who,  as  being  acqiiainted  with  classical  literature,  probably 
made  stricter  demands  than  the  uncritical  apocryphal  writings  could 
satisfy.  In  the  first  place,  Luke  wrote  from  the  reports  of  eye- 
witnesses, and,  next,  with  a  discriminating  use  of  those  reports. 
Doubtless,  he  laid  much  stress  on  the  character  of  the  persons  with 
whom  these  reports  originated  ;  and  the  credibility  of  the  whole 
Gospel-history  rests,  therefore,  upon  the  Spirit,  who  animates  a 
series  of  persons  linked  together  by  his  living  communicfUion.f 

*  Comp.,  on  the  contrary,  my  Kritik  dor  Ev.  Geschichte,  §  30. — [E. 

f  Justly  does  Osiander  exclaim  in  his  Apologie  des  Lsbens  Jesu,  Tubingen,  ?°37,  S. 
63 :  "  What  shall  bo  said  when  Strauss,  instead  of  refuting  the  strong  anti-mythica1  argu- 
ment afforded  by  Luke's  preface,  imagines  it  invalidated  by  the  empty  assertion.  '  that 
Luke  certainly  might  speak  so,  if  he  had  no  idea  that  he  was  narrating  myths,'  and  de- 
grades a  historian,  who  begins  so  discreetly,  to  a  thoughtless  collector  of  unconsciously 
framed  myths  ?" 


202  LUKE  I.  4. 

Facts  such  as  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  birth  of  Je"sus, 
could  be  attested  only  by  Mary  herself ;  but  he  who  was  moved  by 
the  same  Spirit  that  enabled  her  to  give  such  testimony,  received 
her  witness,  and  needed  no  other ;  he  who  was  a  stranger  to  that 
Spirit,  found  no  other  testimonies,  and  accordingly  left  the  matter 
uncredited.  The  acknowledgment  of  the  certainty  of  the  Gospel- 
history  always  presupposes,  therefore,  faith  in  the  Spirit  of  truth ; 
and  as  in  human  life  truth  and  falsehood  appear  side  by  side  indeed, 
but  yet  are  at  the  same  time  opposed,  being  distinguished  as  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  the  World — to  him  who  is  conversant  with  the 
world  and  its  sprit,  which  every  where  suspects  falsehood  and  de- 
ceit, because  it  carries  them  about  in  itself — to  him,  as  such,  the 
Gospel-history  can  not  and  will  not  be  accredited.  But  Luke's  nar- 
rative afforded  complete  assurance  to  Theophilus,  because  he  was  not 
out  of  this  sphere  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  but  lived  within  it.  He  was 
a  member  of  the  church  (and  the  early  church  possessed  the  Spirit 
of  truth  fully),  as  indicated  by  the  words  7repl  J>v  narrix'f}^  ko-yuv, 
the  things  wherein  thou  wast  instructed,  and  the  Spirit  of  the  eye- 
witnesses was  therefore  in  him  also.  (Kar^eZaflai  is  the  usual  term 
for  attending  on  instruction  in  religion.  See  Acts  xviii.  25  ;  1  Cor. 
xiv.  19  ;  Gal,  vi.  6.)  Only  we  must  not  conceive  of  the  nariixflaic;  in 
the  earliest  times  of  the  church  to  have  consisted  of  a  communica- 
tion of  doctrines  ;  it  was  founded  on  history  only  (/toytu — histories, 
narrations?)  Reflection  was  not  yet  developed  in  the  church,  and 
doctrines  had  not  yet  been  deduced  from  God's  mighty  acts  by 
logical  process.  The  apostles  were  content  with  bearing  witness  to 
the  great  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  ;  on  this  foundation  of  fact  the 
Church  was  reared.  Mere  opinions,  doctrines,  dogmas,  could  never 
have  given  rise  to  a  phenomenon  such  as  the  Christian  Church  pre- 
sents. But  after  its  formation,  there  could  not  fail  to  arise  within 
it  systematizing  doctrinal  activity,  because  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is 
destined  to  pervade  all  the  powers  of  human  nature.  But  though 
the  instruction  of  the  ancient  church  was  historical,  it  was  not 
confined  merely  to  narration  ;  rather,  the  testimony  of  the  first 
ministers  of  the  word  was  accompanied  by  a  power  which  attracted 
those  hearts  that  received  it  into  the  new  sphere  of  life  opened  by 
the  Saviour  ;  and,  by  the  agency  of  that  Spirit,  those  who  had  re- 
ceived the  testimony  of  the  truth,  became  themselves,  in  turn,  wit- 
nesses of  those  same  great  facts,  which  were  not  merely  outwardly 
known  to  them  as  things  past  and  over,  but  exerted  a  living  power 
within,  through  the  agency  of  the  living  Spirit.  The  church  was 
thus  built  up  purely  from  within  itself ;  nothing  foreign  could  in- 
trude within  its  pale  :  first,  the  testimony  to  the  truth  had  to  be 
received  and  embraced  with  the  accompanying  power  of  the  Spirit ; 
then  followed  incorporation  into  this  new  sphere  of  life,  and  faith  in 


LUKE  I.  4,  5.  203 

its  decisions.  Even  so  the  church  is  built  up  at  this  day,  and  will 
be  till  the  end  of  time  ;  it  needs,  therefore,  no  further  warrant  for 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel-history  than  the  reports  of  eye-witnesses, 
which  are  open  to  us,  and  which  are  still  accompanied  by  the  same 
power  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  as  their  oral  narrations  formerly  were, 
causing  in  those  hearts  which  give  it  ad  mission,  the  same  assurance 
as  was  produced  by  the  words  of  the  witnesses  of  Jesus  in  the  apos- 
tolic age. 

Who  and  what  Theophilus  was  (compare  Acts  i.  1),  cannot  be 
determined  further,  than  that  the  character  of  Luke's  work  leads 
us  to  conjecture  it  to  have  been  addressed  to  one  who  was  familiar 
with  Kome  and  Italy,  and,  consequently,  in  all  probability  resident 
there.*  The  opinion  that  the  Theophilus  to  whom  Luke  wrote,  is 
the  high-priest  Theophilus  spoken  of  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  xviii.  6, 
3  ;  xix.  6,  4),  is  therefore  to  be  rejected,  since  we  cannot  imagine 
him  to  have  been  so  intimately  acquainted  with  Italy.  Besides,  the 
title  Kpartorog,  most  excellent,  like  the  Latin  splendidus,  intimates 
considerable  dignity,  with  which  this  Theophilus  was  invested.  It  was 
granted  to  proconsuls  in  the  provinces  (Acts  xxiii.  26  ;  xxiv.  3  ; 
xxvi.  25);  at  a  later  period,  however,  inferior  officials  also  enjoyed 
it.  (See  Hug's  Introd.,  p.  395,  Fosdick's  translation.)  Although, 
therefore,  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  as  well  as  the  Acts^of  the  Apostles, 
were,  in  the  first  instance,  addressed  to  a  distinguished  private  per- 
son, yet  the  church  has  justly  received  them  into  the  canon,  like  the 
Epistles  to  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Philemon  ;  because  the  individuals 
for  whom  they  were  immediately  intended,  shared,  as  members  of 
the  church,  its  general  wants  ;  and,  therefore,  what  was  adapted  to 
them  might  be  given  to  all. 


§  2.  ANNUNCIATION  or  THE  BIRTH  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 

(Luke  i.  5-25.) 

Luke  carries  his  "  from  the  beginning"  (awdev),  in  verse  3,  so> 
far  back,  that  he  begins  the  history  of  Christ,  and  of  the  formation 
of  the  church,  as  early  as  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist.  This 
view  results  from  the  nature  of  the  phenomenon  which  he  was  his- 
torically to  set  forth.  For  after  the  spirit  of  prophecy  became 
silent  from  the  time  of  the  building  of  the  second  temple,  and  seem- 
ed entirely  to  have  vanished  from  among  the  people,  there  first  re- 
appeared, in  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist,  a  prophet  like  those 
of  the  Old  Testament.  His  history,  therefore,  must  be  embraced  in 
the  narrative,  since  it  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  Gospel-history. 

*  The  opinion  that  Theophilus  should  be  taken  as  an  appellation  —  Friend  of  God, 
and  as  including  all  believing  readers,  may  be  regarded  as  antiquated. 


204  LUKE  I.  5,  6. 

— There  is  a  striking  change  of  style  in  passing  from  the  preface  to 
the  narrative  which  follows  ;  while  in  the  former,  pure  Greek  pre- 
vails, in  the  latter,  appear  the  strongest  Hebraisms.  This  is  most 
naturally  accounted  for  on  the  supposition,  that  Luke  drew  his  his- 
torical details  from  written  sources,  arid  incorporated  them  into 
his  work,  often  quite  unchanged,  or  but  slightly  amended.  The 
character  of  the  narratives,  moreover,  particularly  in  the  first  two 
chapters,  renders  this  conjecture  extremely  probable  ;  for  they 
record  events  which  took  place  in  the  bosom  of  two  families,  and 
which  must  have  been  preserved  in  them  as  a  sacred  treasure,  till 
the  hopes  expressed  of  the  two  scions  of  the  families  had  been 
made  good  by  the  result.  But  afterwards,  when  the  Saviour's  great 
work  was  accomplished,  and  Mary,  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  was 
numbered  among  the  first  disciples  (Acts  i.  14),  nothing  was  more 
natural  than  that  she  should  impart  to  the  community  the  wonders 
that  clustered  round  the  birth  of  him  whom  she  herself  now  adored 
as  her  Saviour.  The  holy  family  had,  as  it  were,  expanded  ;  and, 
in  connexion  with  it,  the  sacred  histories  also,  of  which  it  had  been 
the  scene,  could  be  more  widely  diffused. 

Ver.  5. — Luke  begins  with  a  general  designation  of  time  (see 
note  on  Matth.  ii.  1),  by  setting  out  from  the  reign  of  Herod  the 
Great ;  he  then^  describes  the  family  which  is  to  be  the  immediate 
subject  of  his  narrative.  His  object  did  not  allow  him,  like  Mat- 
thew, to  assume  much  as  already  known.  He  describes  with  exact- 
ness all  the  characters ;  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth  were  both  of  a 
priestly  family  (as  Joseph  and  Mary  were  both  of  the  lineage  of 
David),  which  gave  lustre  to  their  offspring.*  Of  Zacharias  we  are 
further  told,  that,  as  priest  he  belonged  to  the  course  or  the  class 
of  Abia.  This  was  the  eighth  of  the  twenty-four  classes  of  priests 
appointed  by  David.  (See  1  Chron.  xxiv.  10.)  Each  of  these 
classes  took  the  service  in  the  temple  for  a  week.  (In  Josephus 
[Antiq.  vii.  15,  7],  they  are  called  narpiai,  with  reference  to  the 
relationship  which  existed  among  them.  The  name  tyrjpepia,  course, 
which  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  is  chosen 
with  reference  to  their  duty  in  the  temple.)  The  use  which  Scali- 
ger  (opus  de  emendatione  temporum)  and  Bengel  (ordo  temporum) 
have  attempted  to  make  of  the  definite  succession  of  the  twenty- 
four  classes  of  priests  in  the  temple  service,  as  a  chronological 
datum,  cannot  afford  any  results  to  be  at  all  depended  upon,  because 
the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  rotation  cannot  be  definitely  fixed. 

Ver.  6. — The  account  of  their  family  relations  is  followed  by  that 
of  their  personal  character.  Both  were  6iKatoi}just}  righteous,  and 
not  merely  outwardly  before  men,  but  before  God.  The  idea  of 

*  Josephus  (vit.  c.  1)  remarks,  Hap'  TI/J.IV  rj  1%  iepuavvw  ps-ovcia  rcKp'jpiov  tan 


LUKE  I.  6-10.  205 

),  righteousness,  used  of  persons  under  the  law  (as  it  is  in 
Luke  ii.  25,  of  Simeon,  and  2  Peter  ii.  7,  of  Lot),  can  of  course  be 
understood  of  legal  righteousness  only,  as  is  shewn  by  the  explana- 
tory clause,  Tropev6fj,evot  KV  Trdaaig  raig  h>rohalg  KOL  ducai&naoi  rov 
Kvpiov  dfiefiirroi,  walking  in  all  the  commands,  etc.  The  Iv-oXai  and 
the  6tK.ai6[j,ara,  commands  and  ordinances,  are  the  individual  de- 
clarations and  statutes  of  the  law,  which  they  had  striven  to  follow 
with  upright  mind,  and  without  pharisaical  hypocrisy.  But  when, 
in  this  and  other  passages  (Matth.  x.  41  ;  Luke  xv.  7),  righteous- 
ness (dinaioovvT)')  is  ascribed  to  certain  persons,  there  is  no  contra- 
diction to  Rom.  iii.  20,  according  to  which  passage  the  law  causes 
knowledge  of  sin.  The  diicaioavvr)  rov  vopov,  righteousness  of  the 
laic,  never  is  an  absolute  righteousness  (Gal.  iii.  20) ;  but  relatively,  it 
always  implies,  in  those  who  strive  for  its  attainment,  repentance  and 
faith ;  and  hence  a  longing  for  the  Finisher  of  that  which  is  want- 
ing to  them.  Thus,  on  account  of  their  righteousness,  the  desire 
for  a  Saviour  was  lively  in  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth.  (On  dutaioovvr], 
and  all  cognate  words,  see  the  complete  exposition  in  the  note  on 
Rom.  iii.  21.) 

Ver.  7. — But  the  want  of  a  blessing  in  respect  of  offspring 
formed  a  contrast  with  their  righteousness,  as  in  the  case  of  Sarah. 
Elizabeth  was  barren  (oreipa,  see  Luke  xxiii.  29  ;  Gal.  iv.  27),  and 
both  were  no  longer  young.*  The  age  of  Zacharias  must  be  con- 
sidered relatively  only — viz.,  with  respect  to  his  office.  According 
to  Numb.  viii.  25,  no  one  was  permitted  to  perform  the  functions  of 
a  priest  beyond  the  fiftieth  year  of  his  age.  If  we  take  into  account 
also  the  oriental  custom  of  marrying  early,  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth 
might  well  have  given  up  the  hope  of  offspring  on  account  of  their 
long  childless  marriage,  notwithstanding  that  the  age  of  Zacharias, 
considered  in  itself,  was  not  so  great. 

(Kadori  is  found  only  in  the  writings  of  Luke,  sometimes  with 
the  meaning  siquidem,  as  in  this  passage  and  xix.  9  ;  Acts  ii.  24 ; 
sometimes  meaning  "  according  as,"  "  as  far  as,"  Acts  ii.  45  ;  iv. 
35.  The  phrase  TrpofteprjKuc  KV  ralq  rifiepaig  =  D->»  15  NB,  Gen.  xviii, 
11,  and  frequently  elsewhere.) 

Ver.  8,  9, 10. — After  these  prefatory  observations,  which  inform 
the  reader  of  the  circumstances  of  the  family  whose  history  is 
about  to  be  told,  there  follows,  introduced  by  an  iyzvero  d£  =  ••rpj, 
and  it  came  to  pass,  the  special  narration  of  the  events  connected 
with  the  birth  of  John.  According  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Jew- 
ish service,  incense  was  offered  twice  daily — at  the  morning  and 

*  It  was  the  same  with  the  mothers  of  Isaac  and  Samuel.  The  Evangelium  de  nativ- 
ilate  Marix  (Thilo.  vol.  L,  p.  322),  remarks  appropriately  on  this  point :  Deus  cum  alicu- 
jua  uterum  claudit,  ad  hoc  facit,  ut  mirabilius  denuo  aperiat,  et  non  libidinis  esso  quod 
nascitur,  sed  divini  muneris  cognoscatur. 


206  LUKE  I.  10-14. 

evening  sacrifice.  (Ex.  xxx  7,  8.)  The  ministering  priest  carried 
the  censer  with  incense  (Ov/iia^a)  into  the  holy  place  (vaof^r^rj-n, 
the  temple  properly  speaking,  while  lepov  includes  the  courts  also  ; 
see  Matth.  xii.  5 ;  John  ii.  14),  in  front  of  which  the  courts  extended, 
where  the  multitude  assembled  for  prayer  stood,  awaiting  the  re- 
turn of  the  priest.  The  twenty-four  classes  of  the  priests  alternated 
according  to  a  determinate  cycle  ;  but  the  priest  who  was  to  minis- 
ter for  the  day  was  chosen  by  lot  (£Aa%e  rov  dvpidaai)  from  among 
the  priests  who  constituted  each  class.  This  had  become  the  estab- 
lished custom  of  the  priest's  office,  ('lepdreia  differs  from  lepdrevna, 
priesthood,  1  Peter  ii.  5,  and  tepuovvr],  priestly  service,  Heb.  vii.  11,  • 
12,  14.)  Once  upon  a  time,  then,  as  the  turn  (rd&g)  came  to  his 
class,  it  fell  to  Zacharias,  by  lot,  to  fill  this  office.  (In  verse  8  tvavn 
is  preferable  to  the  more  common  form  Kvavriov.  It  is  found  in  the 
New  Testament  only  in  this  passage,  and  corresponds  with  Zvavra 
used  by  Homer.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  LXX.  has  tvavn  in  the 
passage  Job  xvi.  21.) 

Ver.  11. — It  is  possible  that  the  lot  brought  Zacharias  into  the 
temple  for  the  first  time,  and  the  quiet  sanctuary  around  powerfully 
affected  him.  These  possibilities  cannot  make  a  sober  expositor 
doubt  that  the  narrator  intends  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to 
be  regarded  as  a  fact ;  nor  can  they  lead  a  believing  critic  of  this 
narrative  to  require  the  commonness  of  every-day  life  in  the  most 
eventful  moments  of  the  life  of  our  race.  At  the  time  when  the 
eternal  Word  descended  to  become  flesh  (John  i.  1,  14),  there  ap- 
peared in  the  world  of  men  phenomena  from  the  world  of  spirit, 
such  as  were  not  needed  in  seasons  of  less  powerful  excitement.  (See 
note  on  Matth.  i.  18  ;  ii.  8.)  From  a  'vivid  conception,  those 
minute  features  are  given,  which  confirm  the  historical  fact,  and  are 
unfavourable  to  the  mythical  view.  The  angel  appeared  by  the 
altar,  on  the  right  side  of  it.  (The  6vot,aarijpiov  rov  Ov^idparog,  altar 
of  incense,  is  described  Ex.  xxx.  1,  ff.  ;  it  stood  in  the  holy  place, 
and  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  great  altar  of  burnt- 
offerings  in  the  court,  Heb.  vii.  13.) 

Ver.  12-14. — Although  the  vision  was  to  be  a  blessing  to  Zacha- 
rias, yet  fear  seized  him  when  he  saw  it,  as  frequently  in  similar 
circumstances.  (Compare  Luke  i.  29  ;  Rev.  i.  17  ;  Dan.  x.  7,  12.) 
In  one  aspect,  this  fear,  at  the  immediate  view  of  phenomena  from 
the  unseen  world,  is  an  expression  of  the  feeling  of  sinfulness.  But 
for  sin,  man  would  see  in  what  is  divine  something  akin  to  himself; 
and  instead  of  fear,  he  would  experience  ravishing  delight.  In  an- 
other aspect,  however,  this  fear  is  expressive  of  a  sensibility  to 
this  contrast  between  what  is  pure  and  what  is  unholy;  and  in 
this  consists  its  nobler  character.  Hence,  such  fear  of  God  is 
never  considered  as  blameworthy,  but  as  the  beginning  (Psalm  cxL 


LUKE  I.  14, 15.  207 

10)  and  the  end  (Isaiah  xi.  2)  of  all  wisdom.  This  fear  of  God, 
•which  is  consistent  with  love  (see  Rev.  i.  17,  where  the  disciple  of 
love  falls  to  the  earth  with  fear  at  the  sight  of  him  whom  he  loves), 
must  not,  therefore,  be  confounded  with  the  fear  engendered  by  the 
spirit  of  bondage  (rrvevfia  dovXda^),  The  latter  implies  being  afraid 
of  God  (vor  Gott),  which  is  absolutely  culpable ;  the  former  might 
be  called  fear  of  ourselves,  or  fear  for  God  (fur  Gott).  (See  note 
on  Rom.  viii.  15.)  The  heavenly  messenger  quiets  this  holy  fear, 
and  then  communicates  his  message  of  joy.  (The  d^rjaig,  prayer, 
indicates  that  Zacharias  had  not  altogether  given  up  the  hope  of 
offspring.  Tevvav  is  here  equivalent  to  riKreiv,  bear,  as  Gal.  iv.  24.) 
At  the  same  time  a  name  is  given,  as  Matth.  i.  21,  to  the  promised 
son,  and  a  name  expressive  of  his  spiritual  importance.  (ludwrjg 
=  -\  ihrn,  bestoived  of  Jehovah.)  Thereby  he  will  bring  joy  not  only 
to  the  parents  by  his  natural  birth,  but  also  to  all  the  pious  by  his 
spiritual  character  and  office,  which  are  here,  by  anticipation,  con- 
nected with  his  birth.  ('Ayakkiaaig,  exultation,  is  a  stronger  term 
than  %apd,  joy.  In  this  passage,  as  in  Matth.  i.  18,  the  reading 
yeveaei  is  preferable  to  the  common  one  yevvijoei.) 

Ver.  15. — In  the  following  verses  the  words  of  the  angel  describe, 
first,  the  character  of  this  promised  one  ;  next,  his  labours;  and 
lastly,  his  relation  to  the  Messiah,  in  whom  all  the  hopes  and  ex- 
pectations of  believing  Israelites  centred.  In  reference  to  his  cha- 
racter, it  is  first  observed  in  general,  that  a  spiritual  significancy 
would  attach  to  him.  (Meyag  =  Vita,  great,  in  respect  of  influence, 
as  Hosea  i.  11.  The  additional  clause  "  before  the  Lord"  sets  aside 
the  idea  of  worldly  importance  ;  he  bears  a  purely  spiritual  charac- 
ter.) Then  the  type  of  his  piety  is  more  precisely  described  by  the 
circumstance,  that  he  will  live  the  life  of  a  Nazarite.  (See  more 
particularly  the  note  on  Matth.  ix.  14.  Siicepa  =  ns»  is  used  of  all 
intoxicating  drinks  ;  the  passage  has  reference  to  Numb.  vi.  3,  ff.) 
In  the  life  of  a  Nazarite  there  appears  concentrated  the  strict  legal 
character  which  John,  the  close  and  crowning-stone,  as  it  were,  of 
the  old  dispensation,  was  called  to  exhibit.  This  form  of  piety  is 
not,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  the  highest,  because  a  heavenly 
messenger  ascribes  it  to  John  as  an  excellence  ;  it  is  rather  assigned 
to  him  as  a  duty,  as  being  specially  suited  to  >  his  whole  calling  and 
destination.  The  wisdom  of  God  embraces  every  variety  of  indivi- 
dual character  and  of  circumstances,  and  neither  requires  every  thing 
from,  nor  gives  every  thing  to,  each.  The  negative  characteristic 
"not  drinking"  (ov  melv)  is  followed  by  the  positive  one,  "filled  with 
the  holy  Spirit"  (TrfajoOfytu  -rrvevfiaro^  dyiov).  That  this  does  not  im- 
ply furnishing  with  natural  capacities,  is  sufficiently  plain  from 
Ttvevfia  dyiov,  Holy  Spirit,  which  always  denotes  a  superior,  heavenly 
life-power,  that  does  not  belong  to  fallen  man  as  such.  To  suppose 


208  LUKE  I.  15, 16. 

this  power  at  work  in  John  (as  in  all  Old  Testament  prophets), 
would  be  attended  with  no  further  difficulty ;  but  the  phrase 
KTI  IK  Koihiag  prjTpog,  even  from  his  mother's  tvomb,  is  obscure. 
('E«  KOLX'KH;  jUT/rpof  —  ^N  •'swa,  Psalm  Ixxi.  6.  "En,  still,  is  not  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  r/d??,  already,  immediately;  it  is  rather  to  be 
taken  in  its  proper  sense,  as  the  writer  conceives  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  continuing  from  the  mother's  womb  down  to  a  later 
period.)  Considered  in  itself,  the  expression  in  KoiXia^  \n\-rpoc;  might 
indeed  mean  merely  "  from  early  youth  onward  ;"  but,  in  connexion 
with  ver.  44,  we  must  allow,  that,  without  doiibt,  the  writer  intends 
us  to  conceive  of  an  active  influence  in  the  Baptist  before  his  birth. 
But  this  thought  becomes  perfectly  intelligible  if  we  consider,  first, 
that  the  TTvevfj.a  aytov  in  this  passage,  is  not  to  be  taken  as  identical 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  outpouring  is  connected  with  the  com- 
pletion of  the  work  of  Jesus.  (See  note  on  John  vii.  39.)  The  ex- 
pression denotes  here  the  divine  power,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  holy  power, 
as  Psalm  li.  13 ;  Isaiah  Ixiii.  10.  And  further,  as  the  Divine 
Spirit  influences  even  the  /mcrtf,  creation  (Rom.  viii.  19),  we  can 
have  no  hesitation  in  admitting  his  influence  in  the  elect  before 
birth.  In  like  manner  we  must  conceive  of  the  influence  of  bap- 
tism on  unconscious  children  ;  but  not  that  it  should  be  thought 
identical  with  regeneration. 

Ver.  16. — The  immediate  agency  of  this  prophet  promised  anew, 
after  so  long  a  silence  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  is  now  described 
as  limited  to  the  people  of  Israel,  warning  of  destruction,  and 
awakening  to  repentance.  ('Emorpfyeiv  =  a->ten  refers  to  nerdvoia, 
which  forms  the  central  point  of  John's  labours,  Matth.  iii.  2.)  A 
new  and  higher  principle  of  life  John  could  not  impart,  nor 
was  that  his  destination  ;  but  the  "  Spirit"  in  him  was  intended  to 
awaken  the  sense  of  the  higher  end  of  life — to  point  men  back  to 
God.  His  ministry  was  confined  to  Israel,  like  that  of  the  Saviour 
(Matth.  xv.  24),  not  that  the  other  nations  were  to  be  excluded  from 
the  favours  of  God,  but  because  what  was  wrought  among  the  central 
people  of  mankind  was  for  the  benefit  of  all.  There  a  hearth  had 
first  to  be  prepared  for  the  holy  fire,  and  for  that  reason  the  influence 
of  God's  messengers  was  concentrated  on  that  spot.  That  it  was  not, 
however,  the -whole  nation,  but  only  certain  members  of  it,  that 
would  be  gained,  is  expressed  plainly  in  the  words :  TroAAoDf  r&v  vl&v 
TOV  'lopaf/A  tmorptyei,  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn, 
etc.  Just  so  when  God  is  called  "  their  God,"  as  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, "  The  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob" — this  does  not 
imply  at  all  the  exclusion  of  other  nations  (Luke  ii.  31)  from  the 
blessing  of  the  true  God,  nor  a  limitation  of  it  to  Israel,  but  the 
fact  that  God  no  more  sustains  a  uniform  relation  to  different 
nations  than  to  different  individuals.  The  Biblo  knows  of  no 


LUKE  I.  16,  17.  209 

national  God  of  the  Hebrews  ;  it  teaches  only,  that  it  hath  pleased 
the  one  true  God,  the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  to  bring  Israel 
into  special  relation  with  himself  (Lev.  xx.  26  ;  Sirach  xxiv.  13),  and 
in  Israel  again,  certain  individuals.  The  angel  speaks  here,  cer- 
tainly, in  a  human  and  Jewish  manner — i.  e.,  so  as  men  and  Jews 
could  understand  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  in  a  divine  manner,  since 
it  is  purely  divine  determinations  to  which  his  words  refer,  and  with 
which  are  connected  new  divine  ordinances. 

Ver.  17. — Lastly,  The  appearance  of  the  new  prophet  is  shewn 
to  be  connected  with  the  Messiah,  as  prophesied  by  Malachi  (iv.  5, 6); 
according  to  which  passage,  Elijah  was  to  precede  the  Messiah,  ex- 
ercising a  preparatory  influence  (Matth.  iii.  3,  ff. — Uposp^eoOat,  go 
before,  involves  preparation.)  But  the  expression  :  KV  Trvevpari  nal 
dwdpei  'HAiov,  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  gives  this  passage 
an  explanatory  character.  John  was  not  to  be  Elijah  raised  from 
the  dead,  but  his  antitype  ;  being  of  a  like  spiritual  nature,  he  was 
to  exercise  a  kindred  influence.  While  "spirit"  (nvevfia)  has  a 
more  general  application,  indicating  his  general  characteristics,  as 
controlled  by  the  quickening  principle  from  on  high — "power" 
(dvvafug)  denotes  rather  what  is  special  and  extraordinary.  In 
Elijah,  the  idea  of  divine  power ,  and  that  in  its  sterner  features,  is, 
as  it  were,  personified  ;  the  same  is  the  spiritual  character  of  John. 
(Comp.  more  particularly  in  note  on  Matth.  xi.  14.)  The  angel's  re- 
ferring to  the  language  of  Scripture,  is  parallel  with  the  quotation 
from  Scripture  in  Christ's  temptation,  on  the  part  of  the  devil. 
(Matth.  iv.  6.)  Passages  like  these  are  erroneously  employed  for 
the  purpose  of  assailing  the  historical  reality  of  angelic  appearances. 
The  true  conception  is  not  that  the  angels  formally  quote  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  that  the  language  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  origin- 
ates in  the  counsels  of  that  heavenly  world  to  which  these  spir- 
itual personages  belong.  The  attaching  of  the  thought  to  the 
words  of  Scripture,  is  to  be  viewed  as  merely  clothing  them  in 
the  form  familiar  and  intelligible  among  men.  Angels  do  not, 
therefore,  quote  the  words  of  Scripture,  because  they  wish  to  derive 
from  the  Bible  a  proof  or  an  illustration  of  what  they  say ;  but 
the  thoughts  expressed  by  them  are  in  the  Bible,  because  they 
contain  a  truth,  which  stands  good,  as  well  in  heaven  as  in  earth.* 
This  verse  is,  further,  of  the  highest  importance  on  account  of  the 
expression,  tvumov  avrov,  before  him,  which  refers  grammatically  to 
Kvptov  rbv  Qebv  avr&v,  the  Lord  their  God,  ver.  16,  so  that  God  him- 

*  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  an  angel,  in  holding  communication  with  men,  should  not 
quote  Scripture  in  the  same  direct  and  formal  way,  and  for  the  same  purposes  of  "  proof  or 
illustration"  as  did  the  Saviour,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  through  those  whom  he  in- 
spired. That  angels  do  not  avail  themselves  of  the  Scriptures  as  one  means  of"  looking 
into"  the  gracious  dispensations  of  God  (see  1  Peter  L  12),  can  be  neither  proved  nor  ren- 
dered probable. — K. 

VOL.  I.— 14 


210  LUKE  I.  17, 18. 

self  is  conceived  as  appearing  in  the  Messiah.  Were  this  thought 
foreign  or  contradictory  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  a  less  natural 
explanation  might  be  attempted  (as,  e.  g.,  that  avro^  —  tnn  denoted 
the  Messiah,  that  well-known,  that  desired  one) ;  but  as  even  the 
Old  Testament  (Isa.  xl.  3,  5  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  6  ;  Joel  iii.  21  ;  Mai.  iii. 
1)  intimates  the  same  truth,  and  the  New  Testament  (John  i.  14) 
expresses  it  clearly  in  doctrinal  form,  the  interpreter  must  abide  by 
the  simple  construction  of  the  words.  It  was  the  exalted  destina- 
tion of  the  Baptist  to  lead  the  hearts  of  men,  alienated  by  sin  from 
what  is  divine,  to  the  Lord  of  all  lords,  who  revealed  himself  in 
Christ  visibly  and  near.  The  concluding  words  of  ver.  17  are  a  free 
quotation  from  Mai.  iv.  5,  6.  The  LXX.,  which  substantially  follows 
the  Hebrew  text,  translates  o$  d^oaaraorriaeL  Kapdiav  -rrar-pbg  rcpbg  vlbv, 
not  napdiav  dvdpdmov  npbg  rbv  K\,T\GIQV  avrov,  who  shall  restore  the  heart 
of  the  father  to  the  son,  and  the  heart  of  a  man  to  his  neighbour. 
In  this  way  the  words  affirm  only  that  he  will  remove  the  alienation 
of  men's  spirit,  and  restore  love  and  peace.  But,  according  to  the 
words  in  Luke,  the  second  half  of  the  sentence,  emarptyai  d-rreideig  iv 
(fipovrjaei  diKaiuv,  to  turn  the  disobedient  into  the  wisdom  of  the  just, 
acquires,  apparently,  a  different  meaning.  But  if  we  look  on  dnetdel^, 
disobedient,  as  corresponding  to  "  the  children,"  and  the  6iicaioi,just, 
as  corresponding  to  the  "  fathers,"  the  thought  remains  essentially 
the  same  ;  he  will  produce  a  great  moral  eifect  on  the  people,  re- 
straining the  fierce  outbreakings  of  sin ;  he  will  awaken  a  salutary 
endeavour  after  righteousness,  and  thus  call  forth  a  Aadf  KareoKevaa- 
juevof,  prepared  people,  whose  character  consists  in  the  sense  of  a 
need  of  salvation.  ($p6v7)m$  is  here  nearly  related  to  ao^ia,  [rossr], 
although  not  identical  with  it ;  it  is  n  s^a  in  the  noblest  sense  ;  so 
that  ungodliness  appears  as  the  true  folly,  godliness  as  the  true  wis- 
dom. [Matth.  x.  16.]  'Ev  faovrjaei  in  construction  with  Imorptyai 
must  be  viewed  as  another  case,  where  a  verb  of  motion  is  joined 
immediately  with  a  preposition  of  rest.) 

Ver.  18. — The  angel's  promise  of  a  son  was  not  to  exclude  na- 
tural generation  ;  Christ's  birth  happened  differently  from  John's. 
Parallel  with  this  is  Isaac's  birth  in  the  Old  Testament  ;  but  the 
unbelief  of  Zacharias  forms  a  striking  contrast  to  Abraham's  faith. 
Of  Abraham  it  is  said,  "  he  considered  not  his  own  body  already 
dead"  (ov  Karsvorjoe  rb  iavrov  G&IIO,  i]dr)  veveKpvuevov^ ,  Rom.  iv.  19. 
Zacharias  looked  at  his  age  and  his  long  unfruitful  marriage  in  a 
doubting  spirit.  It  is  not,  therefore,  the  forethought  exercised  by 
the  father  that  is  blamed,  but  his  unbelief  ;*  he  was  certainly  con- 

*  Such  an  expression  of  unbelief  at  such  an  instant,  is  not.  so  much  to  bo  conceived 
as  proceeding  from  reflection  and  intention,  but  should  be  viewed  rather  as  an  involun- 
tary utterance  of  the  soul.  In  such  moments,  the  inmost  being  of  the  soul  becomes 
manifest;  it  is  seen  whether  faith  or  unbelief  occupies  the  heart's  core.  The  event  had, 
therefore,  for  Zacharias  himself,  a  perfecting  effect  on  his  spiritual  life. 


LUKE  I.  18-20.  211 

vinced  that  the  vision  in  the  temple  beside  the  altar,  which  filled 
his  heart  with  holy  fear,  was  a  heavenly  one,  but,  nevertheless,  he 
allowed  unbelief  a  place  in  his  heart.  The  wrong  lay  not  in  the 
words  of  the  question,  but  in  the  disposition  from  which  it  pro- 
ceeded. (Mary's  question  [Luke  i.  34]  sounds  like  one  that  pro- 
ceeded from  doubt,  and  yet  she  exercised  a  childlike  trust.)  The 
asking  for  a  sign  (nto,  dT/pZov)  in  confirmation  of  the  promise,  is 
never  disapproved  (see  Gen.  xv.  8,  where  Abraham  asks  y?x  n^s  = 
Kara  ri  yvuxjo^ai  rovro) ;  on  the  contrary,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, not  to  ask  for  one  is  rebuked.  (Isa.  vii.  13.)  Zacharias'  re- 
quest for  a  sign  is  therefore  granted ;  but,  for  his  unbelief,  he  re- 
ceives a  sign  that  is  a  punishment. 

Ver.  19. — To  accredit  himself,  as  it  were  (and  to  correct  the  un- 
believing Zacharias),  the  heavenly  messenger  makes  himself  known 
in  his  high  dignity  ;  he  calls  himself  Gabriel  (Vioias,  Dan.  viii.  16  ; 
ix.  21 — i.  e.,  man  of  God),  representing  the  creative  power  of  God. 
That  the  angel  applies  a  Hebrew  name  to  himself,  ceases  to  surprise 
us,  if  we  view  rightly  the  meaning  of  names.  A  name  is  nothing 
else  than  the  term  which  corresponds  to  the  inmost  essence  of  the 
object  named.  In  so  far,  therefore,  as  the  beings  of  the  spiritual 
world  possess  definite  characters,  they  have  their  names  ;  whether 
those  names  assume  a  Hebrew  form  or  any  other  form  of  human 
speech,  depends  on  circumstances.  Here  we  have,  at  the  same  time, 
an  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  the  names  of  the  angels  are  not  met 
with  till  the  later  periods  of  the  Jewish  state  ;  for  it  would  be  much 
easier  to  form  a  general  idea  of  a  world  of  spiritual  beings,  than  to 
individualize  sharply  their  separate  characters,  and  not  till  then  could 
names  be  framed  to  denote  such  individualities.  By  the  adjunct  : 
7rape(7T7?/ca>f  wumov  rov  6eot>,  standing  in  the  presence  of  God,  the  in- 
dividual that  appeared  is  further  associated  with  a  certain  class  of 
angels.  (See  more  fully  in  note  on  Matth.  xviii.  10.)  The  grada- 
tion of  existences  everywhere  prevailing  throughout  creation,  men 
with  perfect  consistency  conceive  as  existing  also  in  the  world  of 
spirits.  Hence  in  the  doctrines  of  Zenda vesta,  there  appear,  in  like 
manner,  degrees  among  the  angels  ;  the  seven  Amshaspands  are 
imagined  to  be  nearest  the  throne  of  God.*  That  there  is  truth  in 
this  mode  of  conceiving  the  matter  is  proved  by  the  Scriptures, 
which,  long  before  the  Jews  had  any  connexion  with  the  Persians, 
represent  angels  in  the  more  immediate  presence  of  God.  (Isa.  vi. 

*  Agreeably  with  this,  we  find  in  the  Persian  constitution,  which  was  intended  as  a 
copy  of  the  heavenly  order,  seven  princes  of  the  kingdom  (or  chamberlains),  who  stood 
first  round  the  king's  throne.  (Esther  i.  10,  14.)  The  supposition  that  the  Jews  derived 
their  doctrines  about  angels  from  the  Parsees,  is  discountenanced  by  the  fact,  that  the 
Hebrews  had  only  four  throne-angels,  as  well  as  by  general  reasons.  (See  note  on 
Matth-  viii.  28.  Compare  also  Buxl.  lex  talm.,  p.  46.)  It  must  be  confessed,  however, 
that  they  had  the  number  seven  as  well  as  four.  (See  more  fully  in  note  on  Rev.  iv  5,  6.) 


212  LUKE  I.  20-25. 

I,  ff.)     The  descriptions  in  Dan.  vii.  9,  ff.  and  Kev.  iv.  1,  fT.,  also 
evidently  convey  the  idea  of  the  existences  of  the  spiritual  world 
standing  at  various  degrees  of  distance  from  God,  and  of  corre- 
sponding grades  of  dignity. 

Ver.  20. — Zacharias,  for  his  unbelieving  language,  has  inflicted 
upon  him  the  punishment  of  dumbness  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  the 
period  of  healing  is  foretold  as  an  alleviation,  and  for  a  sign  of  the 
promise  given. 

(M?/  dvvdpevog  ^a^rjaai  is  merely  an  explanatory  clause  of  muirtiv 
for  «w^)6f,  which  term  is  used,  ver.  22.  'Av0'  wv  [Luke  xii.  3  ;  xix. 
44]  answers  both  to  I»_N  nwn,  Deut.  xxviii.  47,  and  to  i»j*-V»,  Jer. 
xxii.  9.  E/f  rbv  natpbv  avr&v  is  to  be  taken  "  according  to  the  suc- 
cession of  the  several  incidents  ;"  first  the  birth  of  the  child  must 
take  place,  and  then  he  would  show  himself  to  be  the  promised  one.) 

Ver.  21,  22. — According  -to  the  later  tradition,  the  priests 
would  seem  not  to  have  remained  long  at  prayer  in  the  temple,  in 
order  not  to  excite  the  fear  of  some  misfortune  having  happened  to 
them  in  the  temple,  which,  as  the  officiating  priest  was  regarded 
as  the  representative  of  the  nation,  would  have  been  viewed  as  a 
national  calamity.  Hence  the  continued  stay  of  Zacharias  in 
the  temple,  though  not  in  itself  long,  was  already  beginning  to  ex- 
cite surprise.  The  observation  that  they  perceived  he  had  seen  a 
vision  (d-rrraoia  =  nxn»,)  does  not  refer  to  his  silence,  but  probably  to 
his  whole  appearance,  in  which  violent  excitement  may  have  been 
expressed,  which,  from  his  coming  out  of  the  temple,  was  immedi- 
ately referred  to  a  spiritual  cause.  Zacharias  confirmed  the  opinion 
thus  expressed,  by  signs  (avrof  rjv  diavevuv  avrolg). 

Ver.  23,  24. — After  the  completion  of  the  week,  during  which 
the  class  of  the  priests  to  which  Zacharias  belonged  had  fulfilled 
their  service,  he  returned  to  his  house,  and  his  wife  became  with 
child.  During  the  first  period  of  her  pregnancy,  however,  she  kept 
herself  retired,  that  all  uncertainty  might  be  removed. 

(In  the  New  Testament  Aeirovpyta,  from  AeTrof  =  drj^ooio^,  public, 
never  means  political  service  ;  yet  it  is  used  of  external  service,  as 
Phil.  ii.  30  ;  2  Cor.  ix.  12.  The  term  commonly  denotes  holy  serv- 
ice, as  Heb.  ix.  21,  and  is  applied  also  to  purely  spiritual  relations, 
as  Phil.  ii.  17,  teiTovpyla  rijg  •niareug.') 

Ver.  25. — The  happy  mother  acknowledges,  with  gratitude,  the 
divine  blessing  in  her  pregnancy.  According  to  the  Old  Testament 
notion,  to  be  without  children  was  a  reproach,  (Isa.  iv.  1 ;  Hos.  ix. 

II,  12)  ;  and  in  this  the  prevailing  tendency  to  what  is  external  is 
plainly  expressed.     The  more  spiritual  character  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, renders  temporal  blessings  entirely  subordinate. 

("Or*,  introducing  the  direct  sentence,  often  appears  in  the  New 
Testament  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  •>;?.  [See  Exod.  iv. 


LUKE  I.  28,  29.  213 


25  ;  xviii.  15.]  MN?  and  Tfca  are  often  used,  like  lirddu,  in  the  sense 
of  "  to  direct  the  countenance  to  any  thing  as  a  token  of  favour." 
In  the  opposite  signification  —  which  ~>p,s  also  often  has  —  inddu  occurs 
in  Acts  iv.  29.) 

§  3.  ANNUNCIATION  OF  THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS  —  MARY'S  VISIT 
TO  ELIZABETH. 

Luke  i.  26-56. 

Luke's  record  is  here  more  specific  as  to  time  and  place  than 
Matthew's.  We  can,  therefore,  by  his  help,  render  Matthew's 
account  more  full  and  circumstantial.  The  words  "  in  the  sixth 
month/'  which  refer  to  verse  24,  furnish  a  datum  of  some  import- 
ance for  the  age  of  Jesus  in  relation  to  John  ;  and  the  observation, 
that  the  annunciation  took  place  at  Nazareth,  explains  to  us 
Matth.  ii.  23.  Doubtless  Mary  (or  Joseph)  had  property  in  Naza- 
reth as  well  as  in  Bethlehem  ;  on  which  account  Nazareth  is  called, 
in  Luke  ii.  39,  TTO/U^  avr&v,  their  city.  (On  Nazareth  and  Galilee, 
see  note  on  Matth.  ii.  22,  23.  Mv^areveadai  =  to-™,  see  Deut.  xxii.  23.) 

Ver.  28,  29.  —  The  description  which  follows,  of  a  secret  transac- 
tion of  the  most  delicate  character,  is  conceived  with  a  simplicity 
and  tenderness,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  a  freedom  from  any  un- 
called for  intermixture  of  reflection,  which  confirm  the  fact  to  every 
mind  open  to  truth  ;  and  it  is  only  by  force  that  it  can  be  perverted 
to  any  impure  associations.  With  a  heavenly  salutation  the  mes- 
senger of  the  higher  world  introduces  himself  to  the  humble, 
child-like  Mary  —  Xalpe  KexapirufiKvrj,  hail,  thou  highly  favoured. 
(Xapirofo,  to  MAKE  pleasant,  agreeable,  is  found  in  Ephes.  i.  6, 
besides  in  this  place.  It  is  in  use  also  among  the  later  authors  — 
e.  g.,  Libanius.)  The  expression  does  not  imply  any  self-produced 
holiness  and  excellence  in  Mary,  but  only  her  election  by  grace. 
The  Lord  had.  chosen  her,  even  in  the  line  of  her  ancestors,  to  be  the 
mother  of  the  Saviour.  With  child-like  innocence  she  dreamed 
not  of  her  high  destination,  and  thought  herself  not  worthy  of  this 
happiness  —  the  highest  that  a  daughter  of  Abraham  could  imagine. 
While,  therefore,  Ke^aptTwjitev?/,  highly  favoured,  applies  to  her  whole 
spiritual  state,  the  subsequent  expression,  ev^oyrjuKvri  iv  yvvat&v, 
blessed  among  women,  refers  to  her  special  destination  ;  so  that 
tyevijeris,  thou  art  become,  may  be  supplied.*  Mary  fell  into  medi- 
tation on  the  meaning  of  this  salutation  (rroraTrof  denotes  as  much 
the  quantity  as  the  quality,  Matth.  viii.  27  ;  1  John  iii.  1);  and  on 

*  EiiAoyeiv,  like  "rp.s,  has  a  double  sense,  according  as  it  is  used  of  the  relation  of 
superior  to  inferior,  or  of  inferior  to  superior.  In  the  former  relation  it  means  "to 
bless;"  in  the  latter,  "to  praise,"  "to  thank,"  which  presupposes  our  having  beea 
blessed. 


214  LUKE  I.  30-33. 

the  appearance  of  the  heavenly  messenger  (on  dierapdxftrj,  was  dis- 
turbed, see  note  on  i.  12),  she  did  not  know  how  to  apply  it  to  her- 
self. (On  6iako<)'i<j{i6g,  diaXoyi&adai  from  Aoyo^  =  vovg,  see  note 
on  ii.  35.) 

Ver.  30,  31. — The  further  execution  of  the  commission  begins 
with  a  quieting  p)  <j>o/3ov,  fear  not  (see  i.  13),  and  an  assurance  of 
the  favour  of  God.  The  idea  of  "  favour"  (xdpig  =  Vn,  evpioKetv 
%dpiv  =  ih  N*»)  involves  here  the  free  exercise  of  divine  love,  which 
does  not  appear  determined  hy  any  thing  existing  out  of  or  in  her. 
It  is  consequently  an  expression  of  the  pure  choice  of  grace,  which 
leaves  the  creature  no  possibility  of  personal  merit.  The  an- 
nouncement, that  Mary  was  to  become  a  mother,  is  accompanied, 
as  in  Matth.  i.  21,  with  the  mention  of  the  name  which  the  child 
was  to  receive. 

Ver.  32,  33. — The  character  of  this  expected  child  of  God  is 
now  described  by  infinitely  more  exalted  traits  than  was  that  of 
John  above,  ch.  i.  16,  17.*  He  comes  as  vlbg  tyiarov,  son  of  the 
highest  (John  as  dovhog,  servant),  and  as  ruler  over  the  house  of 
Jacob,  to  which  John  himself  belonged. 

(On  jtteyo?,  great,  see  note  on  verse  15  ;  and  on  vlb$  v^iarov,  fur- 
ther remarks  in  note  on  i.  35.  The  term  vtptorog,  highest,  corre- 
sponds to  the  Hebrew  TI^?,  Gen.  xiv.  18.  Kakelodai,  to  be  called,  is 
sometimes  used  of  false,  empty  speaking  ;  and  then  the  essence,  as 
-being  something  superior,  is  opposed  to  it ;  but,  sometimes,  of 
being  named,  in  as  far  as  it  is  a  correct  denomination  of  the 
essence  ;  and  in  this  latter  meaning  it  is  (like  N^)  synonymous 
with  elvai,  to  be,  but  with  the  accessory  idea  of  being  recognized  to 
be  such.  This  meaning,  which  is  connected  with  the  use  of  dvopa, 
name,  (t»)  is  often  found ;  e.  g.,  immediately  after  in  verse  35, 
76  ;  Matth.  v.  9,  19  ;  and  frequently.  The  former  meaning  appears 
verse  36,  and  frequently.) 

With  respect  to  the  dominion  assured  to  the  promised  offspring, 
it  is,  in  the  first  place,  connected  with  the  person  of  David.  The 
principal  passage  which  establishes  this  connexion  is  2  Sam.  vii.  13, 
ff.  In  its  immediate  literal  sense,  it  applies  to  Solomon,  who,  how- 
ever, is,  at  the  same  time,  viewed  as  a  type  of  the  true  Prince  of 
Peace.  The  passage  is  so  treated  even  by  the  prophets  (Psalm 
Ixxxix.  4 ;  Isaiah  ix.  7  ;  Jer.  xxxiii.  15,  ff.)  Next,  the  dominion  of 
the  expected  King  is  described  as  an  everlasting  one.  The  indefinite 
phrase  e/?  rovg  alG>vaq,for  ever  (LXX.  have  d?  rbv  al&va  in  2  Sam. 
vii.  13,  16)  is  defined  more  accurately  by  OVK  la-rai  TE/,O$,  there  shall 
be  no  end;  so  that  the  dominion  of  Jesus  is  here  described  as  an 
everlasting,  endless  one,  in  its  proper  sense.  This  thought  leads  to 

*  See  Theremin's  incomparable  Sermon  on  the  words,  "He  shall  be  great,"  in  hia 
Kreuz  Christi,  Tb,  i.,  Sermon  2. 


LUKE  I.  33-35.  215 

the  right  view  of  the  limitation  here  made  of  the  Messiah's  king- 
dom to  the  house  of  Jacob.  A  dominion  that  extends  beyond  all 
time,  cannot,  at  the  same  time,  be  conceived  as  limited  by  political 
boundaries.  The  special  reference  to  the  house  of  Jacob  is  to  be 
viewed  here  in  the  same  manner  as  in  Luke  i.  16 ;  and,  at  the  same 
time,  the  people  of  Israel  is  regarded  (as  in  Matth.  ii.  6)  as  a  type 
of  the  sanctified  portion  of  mankind  brought  together  in  the  king- 
dom of  the  Messiah.  (John  xi.  52.) 

Ver.  34. — With  child-like  innocence  Mary  expresses  her  doubts 
at  this  wonderful  language  ;  she  does  not  live  in  marriage  connexion 
with  any  one  (yivuoKu  =  y?i}}  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  a  mother. 
According  to  the  entire  form  of  the  answer,  it  might  have  proceeded 
from  unbelief ;  at  least  the  words  are  not  expressive  of  faith.  The 
connexion,  however,  implies  that  Mary  believed,  but  wished  to 
know  how  this  promise  could  be  accomplished.  Believing  inquiry, 
directed  in  a  child-like  spirit,  is  therefore  not  blamed. 

Ver.  35. — In  answer  to  this  question,  the  angel  discloses  to  her, 
that  the  Son  of  God,  whom  she  was  to  bear,  would  be  conceived  in 
a  pure  and  chaste  manner  in  her  virgin  womb.  In  words  of  deep 
import  the  heavenly  messenger  declares  to  her  this  sublime  mystery. 
In  the  first  thought,  TTvevpa  dyiov  ETrekevoerai  KTTL  oe,  the  Holy  /Spirit 
shall  come  upon  thee,  the  rrvsv^a  dyiov,  Holy  Spirit,  is,  as  in  i.  15, 
the  divine  essence  in  general,  which,  in  its  nature,  is  holy.  As 
the  physical  generation  of  Jesus,  is  here  spoken  of,  we  cannot 
refer  the  creative  agency  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  narrow  sense, 
who,  according  to  the  fundamental  view  of  the  Trinity,  makes 
the  world  of  conscious  moral  agents  the  sphere  of  his  agency.'*  The 
absence  of  the  article  favours  this  view  ;  irvev^a  dyiov,  Holy 
Spirit,  has  indeed  acquired  the  nature  of  a  proper  name,  but 
dvvapig  tyiorov,  power  of  the  highest,  could  not  have  been  without 
the  article,  if  'the  third  person  of  the  Godhead  had  been  intended. 
In  KTrekevoeraL  ETTI  ae,  shall  come  upon  thee,  there  is  also,  most  pro- 
bably, an  allusion  to  the  description  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
(Gen.  i.  2,  where  the  LXX.  translate  ft?>pto,  t-7rc</>epeTo  mdva)  TOV 
vda-og),  of  which  the  creation  of  that  miniature  world,  the  first 
man  was  a  copy,  which  has  its  antitype  in  regeneration.  (John  iii. 
5,  8.)  The  latter  half  of  the  verse  explains  the  former  more  par- 
ticularly. "Power  of  the  highest"  here  corresponds  to  "Holy 
Spirit,"  and  indicates  the  correct  notion  of  it  as  the  creative  power 
of  God.  (B^N  STII,  Gen.  i.  2.)  'Emoiudaei  ooi,  shall  overshadow  thee, 

*  If  we  were  to  hold  this  to  refer  literally  to  the  third  person  of  the  Godhead,  it 
would,  moreover,  follow  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ ;  a  mode 
of  speaking  very  rightly  never  sanctioned  by  the  Church,  since  the  Holy  Ghost  does  in- 
deed proceed  from  the  Son,  but  the  Son  has  not.  his  origin  from  the  Spirit.  God  the 
Father  is  the  Father  of  Jesus  in  his  divine  and  human  nature. 


216  LUKE  I.  35. 

stands  as  explanatory  of  Kiretevaerat  km  ae,  shall  come  upon  thee. 
'Emanidfrtv,  overshadow,  does  not  at  all  involve  the  idea  of  "  pro- 
tecting, screening"  (according  to  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  ^«»); 
the  connexion  leads  evidently  to  the  idea  of  generation.  It  is  best, 
therefore,  to  compare  it  with  the  Hebrew  QIBSS  sns  (Ruth  iii.  9  ; 
Ezek.  xvi.  8)  in  the  signification  of  spreading  out  the  wings  (— 
skirts  of  a  garment),  consequently  "  to  surround,"  "to  overshadow/'* 
which  is  an  euphemistic  expression  for  connubial  intercourse.  Per- 
haps the  term  contains  also  a  remote  allusion  to  n?rn»  in  Gen.  i.  2. 
The  word  tjrn  is  well  known  to  have  the  meaning  "  to  hover  over  ;" 
and  in  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  it.  is  placed  in  parallelism  with  c^ljs  an?. 
The  whole  thought  of  the  remarkable  verse  is,  therefore,  no  other 
than  this,  that  Mary,  without  the  intervention  of  a  man,  would  be- 
come a  mother — the  pure  and  chaste  power  of  the  creative  Divine 
Spirit  would  be  the  generator.f  Consequently,  the  appearance  of 
the  Saviour  among  mankind  is  represented  as  a  new,  immediate, 
and  divine  act  of  creation,  and  thus  the  transmission  of  sinfulness 
from  the  sinful  race  to  him  is  excluded.  But  inasmuch  as  this  act 
of  creation  did  not  altogether  exclude  the  substance  of  human 
nature,  in  consequence  of  Mary's  relation  to  Jesus,  the  Saviour, 
though  free  from  sinfulness  in  the  principle  of  life,  yet  partook 
in  common  with  men  of  the  doOeveta  rrjg  aapKog,  weakness  of  the 
flesh  (2  Cor.  xiii.  4.)  On  this  depended  his  capacity  of  suffering, 
which  again  was  a  necessary  condition  of  his  whole  work  as  the 
Saviour4  In  his  human  nature  he  glorified  human  nature  in  gen- 
eral. The  fact  of  the  promised  offspring  being  referred  for  his  origin 
to  the  "  Holy  Spirit,"  necessarily  shews  him  to  be  holy  himself, 
and  as  such  he  is  called  Son  of  God.§  (The  words  in  aov  were  pro- 

*  The  cherubim  also  spreading  their  wings  over  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  denote  the 
active  presence  of  God.  Exod.  xL  34;  Numb.  ix.  18,  22.  See  also  Suiceri  Thcs.,  vol. 
L,  p.  1175. 

f  The  tTTiaicid&iv,  overshadow,  hardly  implies  creation.  Of  Christ's  being  generated 
Scripture  nowhere  speaks,  and  how  could  the  Son,  who  existed  before  the  world 
(John  xvii.  5),  be  generated?  Evidently  he  could  only  enter  a  new  form  of  existence,  pass- 
ing, viz.,  from  an  eternal,  absolute,  omniscient  existence,  to  the  limitations  that  belong  to 
the  soul  of  a  child.  Having  become  a  human  soul,  he  entered  the  bosom  of  a  virgin  (was 
conceived),  and  here  formed  to  himself  a  body.  For  this  the  existing  material  was  to  be 
prepared  and  sanctified  by  that  overshadowing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  precisely  as,  Gen.  i.  2, 
the  elements  of  chaos  were  prepared,  by  the  overshadowing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  receive 
the  influences  of  the  "Word  of  God. — (E.) 

\  If  Jesus  had  come  into  the  world  by  ordinary  generation,  he  would  have  shared 
in  the  necessitas  moriendi,  together  with  general  depravity;  if  he  had  not  been  born  of  a 
human  mother,  the  impossibilitas  moriendi  would  have  belonged  to  him ;  accordingly, 
only  the  narrative  presented  in  the  Gospels  fulfils  all  that  is  required  in  the  idea  of  a 
Saviour.  Being  born  as  a  man,  the  Saviour  passed  a  really  human  life  ;  but,  like  that  of 
Adam  before  the  fall,  with  a  possibilitas  tentationis  et  mortis,  which  then,  by  his  victory 
became  an  impossibilitas.  (See  further  note  on  Matth.  iv.  1,  ff.) 

§  Son  of  God,  vidf  Qsov,  is  hereto  designation  of  the  eternal,  pre-existent  Son  of 
God,  as  pre-existent ;  it  designates  primarily  the  assuming  of  humanity,  the  man  Jesus,  as 


LUKE  I.  35.  217 

bably  subjoined  to  jevv^evov  by  the  transcribers,  to  whom  the 
thought  appeared  imperfect ;  no  tangible  reason  can  be  given  for 
their  having  been  intentionally  omitted.) 

The  name  Son  of  God,  like  Son  of  the  Highest  in  ver.  32,  has 
here  undeniably  a  reference  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  He  is 
called  Son  of  God,  because  he  was  born,  corporeally,  of  Mary,  from 
the  overshadowing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  same  physical 
meaning  of  the  word  vloq,  son,  is  to  be  assumed  in  ver.  32,  is  shewn 
partly  by  the  connexion  with  ver.  31,  and  partly  by  David's  being 
denominated  7rar?/p,  father.  Passages  like  Mark  xiii.  32  ;  Heb.  v.  8, 
(in  which,  however,  vlog,  stands  alone),  appear  likewise  to  come 
under  this  head.  Jesus  is  therefore  here  called  Son  of  God  in  the 
same  sense  as  Adam  in  Luke  iii.  38,  inasmuch  as  he  received  his 
being  immediately  from  God's  hand  ; — the  first  and  second  Adam 
are  parallel  in  this  respect  also.  Both  form  a  contrast  to  the  sons  of 
men,  who,  as  descendants  of  fallen  Adam,  bear  in  themselves  the 
image  of  the  fallen  one  (Gen.  v.  3.)  When,  on  the  contrary,  Jesus 
is  called  6  vlbg  rov  dvOpunov,  the  son  of  man  (with  the  article,  which 
is  very  rarely  omitted,  as  it  is  in  John  v.  27),  this  name  is  very 
nearly  allied  to  the  physical  meaning  of  the  name  Son  of  God,  men- 
tioned above.  It  refers  also  to  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord, 
but  to  this  nature  as  conceived  in  its  ideal  character.  The 
term  has  its  origin  in  the  Old  Testament,  which,  in  several  re- 
markable passages  (forming  the  basis  of  the  rabbinical  dogma  of 
Adam  Kadmori),  transports  the  human  nature  in  its  ideal  into  the 
divine  essence  itself.  (Compare  2  Sam.  vii.  19  ;  1  Chron.  xviii.  17  ;  . 
Ezek.  i.  26  ;  Dan.  vii.  13,  10,  16,  with  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  ff.)  Hence  an 
intimate  oneness  with  the  Father  and  the  heavenly  world  is  ascribed 
to  the  son  of  man  (John  iii.  13),  and  all  power  and  glory,  without 
reference  to  the  humiliation,  is  ascribed  to  him  (John  v.  27  ;  Matth. 
xxvi.  64  ;  Acts  vii.  55.)  Yet,  as  the  apostles  never  use  this  name 
of  him  (out  of  the  Gospels  it  occurs  only  in  Acts  vii.  55,  and  that 
with  a  special  reference  to  the  bodily  appearance  of  our  Lord),  and 
Jesus,  on  the  contrary,  chiefly  uses  it  when  speaking  of  himself ;  it 
is  probable  that  he  desired  in  that  way  to  bring  himself  near  to  man, 
and  intended,  at  the  same  time,  to  set  before  their  eyes  the  ideal  of 
human  perfection.  In  recent  times,  some  would  allow  the  name 
"  the  son  of  man"  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  customary  name  of  the 
Messiah  ;  but  this  view  is  very  improbable — for  the  reason,  that 
then  the  people  would  sometimes  have  given  Jesus  that  name,*  or 

the  boon  of  heaven  to  the  human  race.  But  although  Christ  is  not  in  form  designated 
as  the  Son  of  God  from  his  eternal,  but  from  his  earthly  and  phenomenal  existence,  still, 
as  matter  of  fact  (in  opposition  to  Hofmann,  Scripture-proof,  I.  p.  114),  the  church  doc- 
trine is  by  no  means  thus  done  away — that  Christ  was  not  a  Son  of  God  by  Mary,  but 
the  Son  of  God  from  eternity,  and  became  the  son  of  Mary  by  conception  and  birth. — (E.) 
*  In  the  Apocryphal  book  of  Enoch,  the  name  does  indeed  occur ;  but  undoubtedly 


218  LTJKE  I.  35. 

a  false  Messiah,  would  have  assumed  it.  It  is  probable,  that  only  a 
very  few  of  the  enlightened  among  the  people  understood  the  name 
sj3N  15,  SOT?-  of  man,  in  the  true  sense  of  those  prophetic  passages, 
in  which  it  embodies  the  idea  of  an  original  man — an  ideal  of 
humanity.  The  name  for  the  Messiah  most  usual  among  the 
people  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  was  6  vlbg  Aaflid,  the  son  of  David. 
By  this  name  our  Lord  was  commonly  addressed  by  those  who  im- 
plored his  help,  and  who  thus  acknowledged  his  power  to  help  ;  and 
the  Saviour  himself  presupposes  this  name,  as  so  well  known  and 
familiar,  that  he  argues  upon  it,  and  proves  thence  the  superior  dig- 
nity of  the  Messiah.  (See  Matth.  ix.  27  ;  xii.  23  ;  xv.  22  ;  xx.  30, 
31 ;  xxi.  9,  15 ;  xxii.  42,  45.)  That  this  name  became  so  familiar 
as  a  designation  of  the  Messiah,  is  partly  because  the  prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament  declared  very  fully  and  distinctly,  that  the  Mes- 
siah was  to  come  of  David's  descendants  ;  on  which  account  the 
prophets  often  use  the  name  of  David  for  that  of  the  Messiah  (Isa. 
xi.  1,  10  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5  ;  xxxiii.  15,  21  ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  24 ;  xxxvii. 
24,  25  ;  Psalm  Ixxxix.  4,  21)  ;  and  partly,  because  David  was  to  the 
Jews  the  splendid  ideal  of  a  ruler  over  his  people,  under  whom  their 
dominion  was  most  widely  extended.  The  use  of  this  name,  there- 
fore, was  connected  with  that  range  of  secular  conceptions  of  the 
Messiah,  which  was  prevalent  among  the  Jews.  In  order,  therefore, 
not  to  countenance  these,  our  Lord  in  speaking  of  himself,  avoided 
the  use  of  that  name  altogether,  and  endeavoured  rather,  by  the  use 
of  the  more  obscure  expression,  "  son  of  man,"  to  give  to  the  inquiry 
in  relation  to  the  character  of  the  Messiah  another  direction  ;  for 
although  the  name  was  nqt  a  familiar  one,  he  might  yet  assume 
it  as  understood  among  the  better  portion,  from  those  prophetic  pas- 
sages in  which  it  occurs.  But  the  phrase  vibg  Qeov,  Son  of  God,  is 
commonly  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  a  sense  very  different  from 
the  physical  one,  in  which  it  occurs  in  Luke  i.  32,  35  ;  and  then  the 
article  is  wanting.  The  phrase  usually  denotes,  in  a  metaphysical 
sense,  the  eternal  existence  of  Christ,  which  he  has  with  the  father 
— his  relation  as  God  to  God,  as  the  manifestation  of  the  unseen 
God.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  name  6  vlbg  rov  QEOV,  the  Son  of 
God,  does  not  occur  to  express  this  idea  ;  for  in  passages  like  Psalm 
ii.  7  ;*  2  Sam.  vii.  14,  the  prevailing  reference  is  to  earthly  forms  of 
manifestation.  But  although  the  name  is  wanting  (as  is  the  case  with 
the  idea  of  the  ftaaiXeia  rov  Qeov,  kingdom  of  God),  yet  the  idea  itself 
is  widely  diffused  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  appears  as  early  as 
Genesis  (see  Steinwender  diss.  Christus  Deus,  in  V.  T.  Regiom. 

it  is  only  through  Christian  influence  that  the  name  has  been  put  there.    John  xii.  34, 
ehews  that  the  name  was  quite  strange  to  the  Jews. 

*  The  words  nnN  ''SSi  (Psalm  ii.  7)  do  not,  as  ver.  6  shews,  refers  to  the  eternal  gen- 
eration of  the  Son  by  the  Father,  but  to  the  appointment  of  the  Son  to  universal  dominion 
in  the  world. 


LUKE  I.  35. 

1829,  where  the  passages  from  the  historical  books  are  collected), 
and  often  subsequently  in  the  prophetic  writings,  Isa.  ix.  6,  7  ;  xi.  1, 
2 ;  Mica*h  v.  1 ;  Jer.  xxiii.  6  ;  xxxiii.  16,  and  often.  In  the  Apo- 
crypha, see  Wisdom  vii.  25,  if. ;  viii.  3  ;  Sirach  xxiv.  4,  ff.  In  the 
formation  of  the  name  "  Son  of  God,"  passages  like  Psalm  ii. 
7,  probably  exercised  important  influence  at  a  later  period,  since 
the  different  relations  in  which  the  phrase  might  be  employed, 
were  not  sufficiently  discriminated.  Moreover,  we  find  it  in  many 
passages  in  the  New  Testament ;  and,  indeed,  while  Jesus  himself 
prefers  to  call  himself  "  son  of  man,"  the  apostles,  for  the  most 
part,  use  the  name  "  Son  of  God."  The  Saviour,  as  son  of  man, 
brings  himself  near  to  men.  Men  elevate  him,  as  Son  of  God, 
above  themselves.  Yet  our  Lord  (in  John's  Gospel)  often  calls 
himself  Son  of  God,  or  Son,  with  a  pregnant  meaning.  But  that 
the  name  Son  of  God,  was  merely  a  name  for  the  Messiah  com- 
mon among  the  Jews,  and  without  a  deeper  meaning — they  will 
hardly  be  convinced,  who  consider,  first,  that  the  ordinary  popu- 
lar opinion  among  the  Jews  regarded  the  Messiah  as  merely  a  dis- 
tinguished man,  who,  on  account  of  his  excellencies,  was  chosen  by 
God  tear'  KKkoyijv,  for  the  office.  (Justin  Martyr  dial.  c.  Tryph.,  p. 
266,  sq.)  According  to  this  view,  names,  such  as  Xpiorog,  ftam^evg 
T&V  'lovdaiuv,  vlbg  rov  Aa/3«?,  Christ,  King  of  the  Jews,  son  of  David, 
and  others  would  be  more  readily  suggested.  Again,  if  the  name 
had  been  so  familiar,  there  would  not  have  been  such  astonishment 
at  Jesus  so  calling  himself.  (John  v.  18,  ff.  ;  x.  33,  ff.)  Lastly,  too, 
we  never  find  any  false  Messiah  calling  himself  "  Son  of  God."  The 
passages  John  x.  33,  ff.  ;  xix.  7,  ff.,  rather  shew  that  the  people  re- 
garded it  as  presumption  even  on  the  part  of  the  Messiah.  The 
only  plausible  support  to  this  low  view  of  the  phrase  is,  that  vlbg 
rov  Qeov,  Son  of  God,  is  found  in  some  few  places  in  the  Gospels, 
joined  to  Xpia-og ,  Christ ;  but,  on  closer  inspection,  it  is  plain  that 
no  one  of  them  warrants  the  conclusion  that,  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
this  name  was  in  common  use,  as  synonymous  with  that  of  the 
Messiah ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  same  ideas  were  attached  to  it 
which  were  usually  associated  with  the  name  of  the  Messiah.  With 
respect  to  the  passages  in  which  Son  of  God  is  joined  with  Christ, 
we  should  first  distinguish  carefully  between  those  in  which  Christ 
precedes,  and  those  in  which  it  follows.  In  the  former  (e.  g.y 
Matth.  xvi.  16  ;  John  vi.  69  [according  to  the  Textus  Keceptus, 
Griesbach  reads  6  aytof  rov  6eov~\  ;  xi.  27  ;  xx.  31),  the  phrase  "  Son 
of  God"  contains  only  the  more  precise  determination  of  the  idea  of 
the  Christ.  The  disciples  thought  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  immedi- 
ately after  they  united  themselves  to  him  (John  i.  41)  ; .  but  it  was 
not  till  after  prolonged  intercourse  that  the  idea  of  the  Son  of  God, 
who  had  appeared  in  Christ,  was  unfolded  to  them,  through  the 


220  LTJKE  I.  35. 

revelation  of  the  Father.  (Matth.  xvi.  16.)  Again,  when  the  High 
Priest  asks  (Matth.  xxvi.  63  ;  Mark  xiv.  61)  whether  he  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  this  question  had  reference,  not  to  the  con- 
ceptions prevalent  among  the  people,  but  to  what  Christ  affirmed 
of  himself ;  and  because  of  these  declarations  the  people  cried  out, 
"  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  from  the  cross,"  Matth. 
xxvii.  40.  The  words  of  the  centurion  (Matth.  xxvii.  54,  and  the 
parallel  passages)  refer  to  the  heathen  mythology.  We  grant  indeed 
an  apparent  difference  in  the  case  of  those  passages,  in  which  Son  oj 
God  stands  first,  which,  however,  are  very  few,  as  John  i.  50  ;  ix.  35, 
compared  with  ix.  17.  But  that,  even  from  these  passages,  it  can 
not  be  concluded  that  Son  of  God  was  only  a  common  name  for 
the  Messiah,  is  shown  in  the  particular  exposition  of  them  in  their 
connexion.  (See  Commentary  on  those  places.)  Thus  there  re- 
main only  the  passages,  Matth.  iv.  3,  6  ;  viii.  29,  and  the  parallel 
passages  in  which  Jesus  is  addressed  as  Son  of  God,  as  in  other  cases 
he  is  called  son  of  David.  But  these  passages  occur  only  in  the 
history  of  the  temptation,  or  in  reference  to  demoniacs  ;  we  may 
therefore  with  the  utmost  probability  infer  from  them  that  only 
the  superhuman  demonaical  power  recognized  Jesus  in  his  divine 
nature  and  dignity.  We  must,  therefore,  say,  that  v log  rov  Qeov, 
Son  of  God,  does,  indeed  designate  the  Messiah  ;*  but  so  far 
only  as  he  was  born  of  the  essence  of  the  Father ;  that,  therefore, 
whoever  so  called  him,  either  acknowledged  him  as  such,  or  blamed 
him  for  declaring  himself  to  be  such.  Lastly,  with  respect  to  the 
relation  of  the  name  Son  of  God,  in  as  far  as  it  is  applied  to 
Christ,  and  the  same  name  as  applicable  to  man,  we  have  to 
observe,  that  viol  Qeov,  sons  of  God,  or  reitva  Oeov,1f  children  of 
God,  are  used  in  a  twofold  reference,  corresponding  to  the  two 
meanings,  which  belong  to  the  phrase,  as  applied  to  the  Saviour. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  has  reference  to  the  physical  existence  of 
men.  They  are  called  sons  of  God,  inasmuch  as  God  (indirect- 
ly) is  their  Creator.  This  meaning,  however,  is  very  rare ;  but 

*  On  this  construction  Schleiermacher's  opinion,  too,  is  set  aside,  who  says  in  the 
Glaubenslehre,  Th.  ii.,  S.  707  :  "Son  of  God'1  denotes  probably  not  the  divine  nature  alone, 
but  the  whole  Christ,  in  his  divine  and  human  nature.  Passages,  such  as  1  John  i.  7,  cer- 
tainly shew  that  the  physical  and  metaphysical  meanings  were  conjoined,  as,  indeed,  the 
Scriptures  in  general  are  far  from  any  Nestorian  separation  of  the  natures.  Still,  Son  of 
God  denotes  the  whole  Christ,  inasmuch  as  he  was  born  from  eternity  of  the  essence  of 
the  Father.  Son  of  Man,  on  the  other  hand,  denotes  the  whole  Christ,  inasmuch  as  he 
represents  the  ideal  of  humanity. 

•)•  Tf  KVOV  is  not  used  of  the  person  of  Christ,  though  naif  is.  (Matth.  xii.  18 ;  Acts  iii. 
13,  26;  iv.  27,  30.)  This  term  does  not,  however,  so  much  correspond  to  vloc,  as  to  the 
Hebrew  n'rp  is?,  which  is  so  often  applied  to  the  Messiah,  especially  in  the  second  part 
of  the  book  of  Isaiah.  (See  note  on  Acts  iii.  13.)  TEKVOV  could  not  be  used  of  Christ,  for 
this  reason,  that  the  notion  of  something  undeveloped  predominates  in  the  word,  while 
vidf  denotes  what  has  manly  force  and  energy. 


LUKE  I.  35-39.  221 

Ephes.  iii.  15,  John  xi.  52,  and  Mai.  ii.  10,  come  under  this  head. 
Otherwise,  even  in  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  Isa.  Ixiii.  16, 
Deut.  xiv.  1,  the  reference  to  salvation  predominates.  In  the  latter 
sense  it  appears  also  in  very  many  passages  of  the  New  Testament 
(1  John  iii.  1,  2  ;  v.  2  ;  Horn.  viii.  14,  16,  17  ;  ix.  8  ;  Gal.  iii.  26, 
etc.),  and  denotes  the  regeneration  which,  as  a  new  act  of  creation, 
restores  to  the  condition  of  children  those  who  were  estranged  from 
God  by  sin.  This  reference  corresponds  to  the  deeper  signification 
of  the  name  "  Son  of  God,"  as  applied  to  the  Saviour.  In  regenera- 
tion there  is  the  likeness  of  his  eternal  generation  from  the  essence 
of  the  Father  ;  and  in  reference  to  the  spiritual  children  of  the  one 
Father,  our  Lord  calls  himself  also  the  first-born  among  many 
brethren.  (Rom.  viii.  29  ;  Heb.  ii.  11.)  He  who  from  eternity  was 
Son  of  God,  lived  as  Son  of  Man  on  earth  in  time,  in  order  to  raise 
the  children  of  men  from  earth  to  heaven,  that,  as  children  of  God, 
they  might  be  like  him,  and  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature. 
(2  Peter  i.  4  ;  1  John  iii.  2.) 

Ver.  36-38. — Mary,  too,  receives  a  sign  (orjuelov,  nte),  like  Zach- 
arias  (i.  20)  ;  but  it  is  a  favourable  one.  As  what  had  happened  to 
Elisabeth  is  here  made  known  to  Mary  from  above,  so  also  what  had 
happened  to  Mary  was  made  known  to  Elisabeth  (ver.  41).  Such 
dispensations  were  necessary  under  such  extraordinary  circumstances; 
and,  just  for  that  reason,  we  may  assume  similar  facts  for  the  solu- 
tion of  difficulties  in  those  instances  where  they  are  not  expressly 
noticed.  (See  note  on  Luke  ii.  39.)  The  address  concludes  with 
the  general  truth,  that  the  Divine  Omnipotence  accomplishes  its 
plans  notwithstanding  all  apparent  impossibilities.  The  words  are 
from  Gen.  xviii.  14,  where  they  are  used  of  Sarah  in  similar  circum- 
stances. The  truth  thus  expressed,  in  its  widest  generality,  should 
also  be  conceived  as  so  far  limited,  that  every  thing  true  (priiJM= 
•n  7)  is  also  capable  of  expression  ;  for  what  is  contradictory  is,  as 
such,  not  a  pj^a,  zvord,  tiling,  and,  consequently,  impossible  with 
God,  precisely  because  he  is  God.  Mary,  believing  with  childlike 
humility,  submits  herself  to  God  ;  she  acquiesces  in  her  destination 
for  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  purposes.  The  birth  of  the  Saviour 
became  thus  an  act  of  her  faith  also.  .  Mary's  faith  repaired  Eve's 
unbelief.  (In  ver.  36,  for  the  common  reading  y??pa,  which  form 
stands  for  y^pat,  and  that  again  for  y?fc<m,  from  nominative  y^/paf, 
Griesbacli  reads  y*/pa  for  yf/pei,  from  y^pof.  [See  Winer's  Gram- 
mar of  the  New  Testament,  translated  by  Agnew  and  Ebbeke,  p. 
59.] — Ver.  37.  The  expression  OVK — ndv  frrjfia  is  a  pure  Hebraism  ; 
it  corresponds  with  i^^Vs  &<V.) 

Ver.  39. — In  consequence  of  the  suggestion  of  the  angel,  (verse 
36),  Mary  visits  Elisabeth,  to  whom,  as  a  relative,  she  was,  proba- 
bly, already  known.  Zacharias'  place  of  abode,  which  was  left  un- 


222  LUKE  I.  39-43. 

determined  in  verse  23,  is  now  stated  more  precisely.  He  lived  in 
the  hill  country  of  Judah  (dpeivrj  scil.  #«p«),  m  &  Levitical  city 
called  Juda,  more  correctly  spelt  'lovOa  or  'lovrra.  In  the  Old  Tes- 
tament it  is  called  nvv  (Josh.  xv.  55  ;  xxi.  16),  for  which  the  LXX. 
write  'Irav  in  the  first  passage.  The  reading  'lovdaias  is  at  all 
events  a  correction  ;  if  we  retain  the  form  'lovda,  the  name  of  the 
city  must  be  supplied.  In  that  case,  Josh.  xxi.  11  affords  an  appro- 
priate parallel,  where  it  is  said  of  Hebron,  Xefip&v  iv  ro5  opet  'lovda. 
(Me-a  oTrovd^  corresponds  with  the  more  common  expression  orrovdaiug. 
It  is  found  in  the  LXX.  also,  Exod.  xii.  11 ;  Ezra  iv.  23  ;  Dan. 
vi!9.) 

Ver.  40,  41. — The  narrative  evidently  implies  that  there  was  no 
previous  communication  between  the  two  women  about  what  had 
happened.  As  Mary  knew  nothing  of  the  circumstances  of  Elisa- 
beth before  she  was  informed  by  the  angel  (verse  36),  so  Elisabeth 
also  was  ignorant  of  Mary's  fortunes.  Both  were  led  and  taught 
by  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  there  time  for  such  communications,  accord- 
ing to  the  dates  given  us.  As  Mary  received  the  visit  of  the  angel 
in  the  sixth  month  of  Elisabeth's  pregnancy  (verse  26,  36),  and 
stayed  three  months  with  her  (verse  56),  she  must  have  repaired  to 
Elisabeth  immediately  after  the  annunciation.  Joseph  was  then, 
undoubtedly,  altogether  ignorant  of  the  circumstances,  and  did  not 
become  acquainted  with  them  till  Mary  was  advanced  in  pregnancy. 
(See  more  fully  on  this  point  in  note  on  Luke  ii.  39.)  Being  es- 
poused, she  might,  therefore,  without  exciting  attention,  spend  some 
months  with  a  distant  relative,  by  permission  of  her  intended  hus- 
band. The  sacred  emotions  of  soul  experienced  by  the  mother,  are 
shared  by  the  child  yet  unborn,  and  the  Spirit  from  above  filled  the 
happy  mother,  who  saw  the  most  ardent  hope  of  her  soul  realized. 
Like  Hannah,  the  mother  of  Samuel,  she,  doubtless,  often  devoted 
her  earnestly-desired  child  to  God.  (1  Sam.  i.  11.)  Kespecting  the 
TTvev/j-a  ayiov,  see  note  on  i.  15. 

(ZKiprdu  =  Kiveladcu  is  used  particularly  of  the  leaping  motion, 
to  which  joy  incites.  The  LXX.  translate  Mai.  iv.  2  :  aKiprijoere  ug 
liooxdpia.  In  Gen.  xxv.  22,  it  is  used  also  of  the  motions  of  chil- 
dren in  the  womb.) 

Ver.  42,  43. — Elisabeth,  as  the  elder,  here  blesses  Mary  and  her 
child  (Kap-rrbg  tcoiMag  =  •}&&  -ns),  as  afterwards  John  the  Baptist, 
though  the  inferior,  had  to  baptize  our  Lord.  Elisabeth,  though  she 
blesses,  still  makes  herself  inferior  to  Mary,  when  she  says,  Kot  nodev 
fj-ot  rovro  K  r.  A,*  and  ivlience  is  this  ?  etc.  (Kai  in  questions,  is  em- 
phatic ;  see  Mark  x.  26.)  Elisabeth's  words,  77  fJ-^rr/p  rov  nvpiov  fiov, 

*  The  words  tva  eWy,  involve  the  idea  of  some  previous  instigation  or  command, 
and  might  be  paraphrased,  ""Who  arranged  that  the  mother  of  my  Lord  must  come  to 
me?"  She  regards  it  as  a  fresh  proof  of  the  favour  of  her  God. 


LUKE  I.  43-47.  223 

the  mother  of  my  Lord,  are  very  remarkable.  Turn  them  as  we 
may,  it  cannot  appear  appropriate  to  call  an  unborn  child  Kvpio$& 
lord,  except  upon  the  supposition,  that  Elisabeth,  by  the  illumina- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  like  the  ancient  prophets,  recognized  the 
divine  nature  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  mother  of  whom  she  greeted 
Mary.  The  passage  is  therefore  parallel  with  verse  17,  where,  in 
the  address  of  the  angel,  the  same  idea  of  the  incarnation  of  God 
in  the  Messiah  was  hinted  at,  and  Kvpiog,  lord,  is  emphatic — equiva- 
lent to  the  Hebrew  ISTN  or  nSrr. 

Ver.  44,  45. — Elisabeth's  language  passes,  towards  the  close, 
into  the  third  person.  She  speaks  in  prayer  of  Mary,  and  extols 
her  faith.  By  the  Holy  Spirit,  she  probably  recognized  this  as  the 
fundamental  disposition  of  Mary's  heart,  and  as  the  condition  of  her 
happiness.  The  re/law^,  fulfilment,  has  reference  to  the  fulfilment 
of  all  that  had  been  promised  of  her  son  in  verses  32, 33.  But  with 
respect  to  the  nature  of  her  faith,  it  is  clear,  that  this  word  does  not 
here  mean  faith  in  any  doctrinal  proposition,  but  describes  only  the 
spirit  of  submission  to  the  divine  will,  in  which  Mary  was  found  at 
the  announcement  of  the  heavenly  message.  Faith  is  susceptibility 
to  the  operations  of  divine  grace  and  their  reception  into  the  heart.']' 
(See  further  remarks  in  note  on  Matth.  viii.  2.) 

Ver.  46,  47. — If  we  imagine  Mary  as  living  in  intimate  communion 
with  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  whose  promises  had  doubtless  often 
affected  her  soul,  and  drawn  forth  the  wish,  that  God  would  at  last 
help  his  people,  and  send  the  Saviour,  and  even  that  she  might  be- 
come the  blessed  mother  of  the  Messiah,  there  is  then  nothing  sur- 
prising in  the  expression  of  enthusiastic  joy  which  follows.  Under 
the  consciousness  of  having  become  partaker  of  the  highest  happi- 
ness, she  gave  thanks  for  the  mercy  she  had  experienced,  and  for 
the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises,  which  she  viewed  as  already 
performed  ;  expressing  her  thanks  with  prophetic  intuition,  and  in 
words  of  Scripture  familiar  to  her,  particularly  after  the  pattern  of 
Hannah's  song  of  praise,  uttered  under  similar  circumstances.  (1 
Sam.  ii.  1-10.)  Thus  viewed,  these  poetical  effusions  lose  all  that 

c  Dr.  Paulus  is  of  opinion,  that  xvpiof,  lord,  stands  simply  for  ftaai^ev^,  king;  and 
that  Elisabeth  merely  expresses  her  faith  that  Mary  will  give  birth  to  the  Messiah.  But 
as  not  even  Augustus  and  Tiberius  ventured  to  use  the  name  nvpiof  of  themselves,  it  is  plain 
that  this  mode  of  designating  kings  was  then  very  uncommon.  Least  of  all,  then,  can 
it  be  believed,  that  pious  Jews,  who  called  God  alone  "the  Lord,"  should  have  so  ap- 
plied the  term.  Certainly,  if  we  do  not  regard  these  accounts  of  the  history  of  the 
childhood  of  Jesus  as  family  documents,  the  hypothesis  is  feasible,  that,  from  a  later  and' 
more  matured  conviction  of  the  dignity  of  Jesus,  such  an  expression  was  put  into 
Elisabeth's  mouth.  But  her  divine  illumination  is  sufficient  evidence  of  her  knowledge. 

f  [It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  the  defective  view  of  faith  expressed  in  the 
text.  It  does  not  agree  with  the  definition  in  Heb.  xi.  1,  nor  with  the  Calvinistic  view 
of  the  nature  of  faith.  Faith  necessarily  implies  truth  or  facts  as  its  object,  and  what 
ever  else  is  included,  this  reference  cannot  be  excluded.] — Tr. 


224  LUKE  I.  47-50. 

strangeness  which  at  first  sight  appears  to  attach  to  them.  Even 
ScJileiermacher  made  use  of  them  to  support  the  opinion,  that  the 
history  of  the  childhood  of  Jesus  had  been  cast  into  a  mythical 
form.  Were  the  poetical  effusions  independent  poems,  they 
would  be  calculated  to  awaken  some  suspicion  ;  but  as  they  are 
merely  reminiscences  from  the  Old  Testament,  which  we  must 
suppose  to  have  been  quite  familiar  to  the  parties  concerned,  their 
introduction  here  is  no  way  inconceivable  or  even  inappropriate. 
The  following  song  of  praise  (verses  46-55)  is  usually  called  Mag- 
nificat, from  the  first  word  in  the  Vulgate ;  we  have  an  excellent 
practical  exposition  of  it  by  Luther.  (Meya/lvv w  =  ^?art,  Acts  x. 
46;  xix.  17;  Phil.  i.  20.)  The  combination  of  irvevfja,  spirit,  and  1/^77, 
soul,  the  distinction  between  which  will  be  found  at  length  in  note 
on  1  Thess.  v.  23,  denotes  the  whole  internal  being  ;  the  powers  of 
the  soul,  both  high  and  low,  were  moved  with  joy.  (See  Psalm 
ciii.  1,  "was  and  i?nj?43.)  In  Im  0£w  TOJ  ourripi  pov,  in  God  my  Saviour, 
the  reference  to  an  external  salvation  should  not  be  altogether  ex- 
cluded (see  verse  52)  ;  doubtless  Mary  looked  forward  to  the 
exaltation  of  David's  family.  But  the  deep  religious  fervor  ex- 
pressed in  the  song,  does  not  leave  us  at  liberty  to  regard  this 
reference  as  predominant,  or  to  conceive  of  it  at  all  under  a  coarse 
and  sensual  aspect,  particularly  as  we  must  certainly  suppose 
Mary  to  have  been  illuminated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  agreeably  to 
verse  41.  The  entire  fulness  of  blessings,  consummated  by  the 
appearance  of  the  Messiah,  lay  spread  out  before  her,  and  she  ap- 
plied the  general  salvation  (spiritual  as  well  as  external)  to  herself 
also.  God  was  in  Christ  her  Saviour  also  ;  and  as  she  was  now 
about  to  give  birth  to  the  Son  of  Man,  so  she  was  afterwards  to  re- 
ceive the  Son  of  God  also  into  her  heart.  (See  note  on  Luke  ii.  35.) 
Ver.  48-50. — With  our  spiritual  conception  of  the  passage,  the 
mention  of  the  humiliation  does  not  refer  primarily  to  Mary's 
outward  political  lowliness,  since  she  was  of  David's  family ;  it  is 
rather  the  expression  of  conscious  inward  poverty,  which  could 
discover  no  pre-eminence  in  herself,  because  of  which  such  hap- 
piness should  have  fallen  to  her  lot.  (Tcmeivoc;  ^zis^-jS-oN  [see  note 
on  Matth.  xi.  29],  is  closely  related  to  TTTW^O?,  Matth.  v.  3.)  We 
ought  not,  however,  entirely  to  exclude  a  reference  to  what  is  ex- 
ternal ;  as  a  result  of  the  mercy  of  God  bestowed  upon  her,  Mary 
probably  pictured  external  splendour  to  herself.  But  those  who 
have  found  in  this  fact  a  key  to  the  Saviour's  training,  and  show  what 
Messianic  hopes  he  imbibed  with  his  mother's  milk,  in  fact  but 
enhance  his  glory  in  giving  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  a  character 
so  completely  spiritual.*  But  again  it  is  no  false  notion  that 

*  [The  views  referred  to  above  may  not  be  familiar  to  some  English  readers.     It  has 
the  great  aim  of  the  schools  of  theology  opposed  to  the  Gospel  truth,  to  account  for 


LUKE  I.  50-52.  225 

/ 

the  Messiah  was  to  exercise  a  mighty  influence  on  the  outward 
affairs  of  this  world.  The  error  in  the  popular  conception  con- 
sisted in  their  desire  for  the  external  without  the  internal.  If 
the  people  of  Israel  had  been  brought  to  a  thorough  change  of 
heart,  they  would  have  acquired  a  powerful  influence  externally 
also.  Though  Mary,  therefore,  as  she  was  not  sinless,  may,  for  sin- 
gle moments  have  been  tempted  by  vanity,  yet  her  views  of  the 
Messiah  were  entirely  Scriptural.  The  Old  Testament,  as  well  as 
the  New,  deduces  from  the  Messiah's  sway  over  the  spiritual  world, 
the  entire  transformation  of  the  external  also.  Christ  is  the  king 
of  all  kings  ;  the  highest  earthly  power  is  made  his  footstool.  In 
the  first  instance,  Mary  brings  into  notice  only  the  idea  of  the  after- 
glory  which  would  be  her  portion  as  the  mother  of  the  Messiah — a 
prediction  which  has  been  fulfilled  in  a  more  extensive  sense  than 
she  could  have  wished.  (Feved  —  -iSi,  generation,  those  who  are 
living  contemporaneously ;  rraaai  yeveai,  the  whole  succession  of 
future  generations.)  In  the  light  of  the  Spirit  she  duly  estimated 
the  importance  of  the  Messiah's  birth  for  all  times  and  circum- 
stances. (MeyaA«a  =  M'lV-n,  as  in  Psalm  Ixxi.  19  ;  6  dvvarog  = 
I'saa.)  From  the  specific  reference  to  herself,  her  language,  in  the 
last  words  from  verse  49,  not  ayiov  TO  ovopa  avrov,  and  holy  is  his 
name,  becomes  more  general ;  but  the  succeeding  thoughts  are 
still  to  be  conceived  as  specially  applicable  to  the  present  case. 
(Qofiovpevoi  rbv  Qsuv,  believers,  in  opposition  to  the  unbelieving 
world,  are  the  constant  objects  of  his  care,  notwithstanding  all  ap- 
pearance to  the  contrary.  'Ovofm,  name,  as  the  designation  of  the 
essential  character  in  general,  is  more  accurately  defined  by  the 
special  term  £Aeof,  mercy.) 

Yer.  51, 52. — With  God's  grace  in  blessing  the  humble  (Tanetvoi,= 
0oj3oi'/zevoi — whence  the  choice  of  the  term  mercy,  eAeo^),  is  contrasted 
his  rigour  in  the  punishment  of  the  proud,  vTreprjcfxivoi.  Mary,  in  the 
Spirit,  views  both — the  blessing  for  the  humble  as  well  as  the  curse 
for  the  proud — as  connected  with  the  birth  of  the  Messiah.  The 
words  Kadaipeiv  dwaardg  dnb  6p6va)v,  to  cast  down  potentates  from 
their  thrones,  compared  with  ver.  32,  33,  render  it  not  improbable 
that  Mary  contemplated  external  dominion  also  for  her  son.  Like 
the  prophets,  she  connected,  in  perspective,  the  future  manifesta- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  with  its  first  appearance.  But  though 
she  did  conceive  of  an  external  dominion  of  Christ,  an  idea  which 

the  extraordinary  character  of  Jesus  on  merely  human  grounds.  One  of  these  explana- 
tions is  alluded  to  above.  Jesus  Christ  is  supposed  to  have  been  trained  by  a  mother 
full  of  ardent  hopes  and  aspiring  ambition  to  conceive  of  himself  as  the  Messiah.  But, 
as  our  author  observes,  the  explanation,  so  far  from  accounting  for  the  most  extraordi- 
nary parts  of  the  Saviour's  character — the  spiritual  views  of  his  kingdom — renders  these 
more  inexplicable.] — 2V. 
VOL.  I.— 15 


226  LUKE  I.  52-59. 

has  a  true  foundation  in  the  Bible  (see  note  on  Matth.  xxiv.),  still 
her  conception  of  it  was  doubtless  different  from  the  coarse  material 
views  of  the  great  mass  of  the  Jewish  people.  (With  respect  to  the 
phrase  vnepijtiavoi  6iavoia  Kapdiag — Kapdia,  heart,  in  the  biblical  an- 
thropology, is  the  seat  of  life,  and  of  the  most  general  and  imme- 
diate manifestations  of  life,  and  therefore  of  sensation,  and  of 
thoughts  and  wishes  influenced  by  sensation  ;  while  arrAay^va,  boivels, 
denotes  pure  sympathetic  emotion.  Hence  we  can  explain  the  fre- 
quent combination  of  didvoia,  thought,  and  its  synonyms  Xoyiopog 
diakoyiofiog,  vorjfia,  diav6r\\ia,  &7rivoia,  with  Kapdia,  heart.  This  does 
not  imply  that  the  didvoiai,  thoughts,  are  actions  of  the  heart — they 
are  rather  actions  of  the  vovg  or  /loyof ,  mind  or  reason — but  that  the 
incitement  to  these  actions  of  the  mind  proceeds  from  the  heart. 
See  the  fuller  remarks  in  note  on  Luke  ii.  35  ;  Matth.  ix.  3.) 

Ver.  53-55. — A  kindred  thought  is  expressed  in  several  similar 
figures  ;  poverty  and  hunger,  wealth  and  fulness,  are  kindred  ideas. 
The  satisfying  of  longing  desires — the  repelling  of  self-satisfied  cu- 
riosity after  divine  things,  are  both  included  in  the  notion  of  the 
Messiah.  Nowhere  does  Mary  betray  any  thing  false  in  her  views 
of  the  Messiah  ;  for  the  relation  which,  at  the  close,  she  represents 
his  manifestation  to  bear  to  Israel  and  the  predictions  of  its  prophets, 
is  to  be  explained  agreeably  to  i.  16.  (JAvTikap-fidveadai  —  Porjddv  • 
see  Acts  xx.  35  ;  Sirach  ii.  6.  Israel  is  viewed  as  rrals  Qeov,  a  child 
of  God,  agreeably  to  Exod.  iv.  22,  if  rralg,  child,  does  not  here  stand 
equivalent  to  tas,  servant.  "Ew^  al&vo$*  forever,  is  not  to  be  con- 
nected with  fj,vr)ffdrlvat,  to  remember,  but  with  oTrep^a,  seed,  to  inti- 
mate that  the  blessing  of  the  Messiah  would  have  a  future  influence 
on  the  whole  human  race  in  its  nobler  members,  which  the  seed  of 
Abraham  represents.  The  datives  are  to  be  viewed  as  dativi  corn- 
modi.  The  construction  \ivr\aQr\vai  nvbg  nvi  is  classical.) 

Ver  56. — After  three  months  Mary  returned  ;  as  she  was  pro- 
bably unmarried  at  the  time  of  her  journey  (see  note  on  Luke  ii.  39), 
the  expression  olnoq  avrrjg,  her  house,  leads  us  to  suppose  that  she 
resided  at  Nazareth. 


§  4.  JOHN'S  BIRTH  AND  CIRCUMCISION — PROPHECIES  OF  *ZACHA- 
RIAS  CONCERNING  HIM  AND  CHRIST. 

(Luke  i.  57-80.) 

Yer.  57-59. — Shortly  after  Mary's  departure  to  Nazareth,  Elisa- 
beth gave  birth  to  the  promised  son,f  who,  according  to  very  ancient 
usage,  was  named  at  the  time  of  circumcision.  (Gen.  xxi.  3,  4.) 

*  Some  editions  read  elr  rov  aluva. — Tr. 

f  The  ancient  Alexandrian  church  celebrated  John  the  Baptist's  birthday  on  the  23d 
April  (28th  Pharmouti.)    Subsequently,  the  Greek  church,  as  well  as  the  Latin,  devoted 


LUKE  I.  62-65.  227 

This  took  place,  agreeably  to  the  Mosaic  law,  on  the  eighth  day. 
(Lev.  xii.  3.)  The  happy  mother's  joy  over  this  son  of  her  old  age 
was  shared  by  her  neighbours.  (Meyahuveiv  &Uof  =  t?^  V"nn,  Gen. 
xix.  19.) 

Yer.  60-62. — According  to  the  wish  of  those  present  at  the  cir- 
cumcision, a  family  name  was  to  be  given  to  the  child  ;  but  the 
mother  (from  the  command,  ver.  13)  insisted  on  his  being  named 
John.  In  this  dilemma  they  apply  to  the  father  to  decide.  The 
word  ivvevuv,  beckon,  does  not  warrant  us  in  supposing  him  deaf ; 
in  the  first  place,  the  expression  does  not  actually  exclude  accom- 
panying words,  and  then  again  we  easily  get  into  the  habit  of  treat- 
ing dumb  people  as  if  they  were  deaf.  ('ArroKpiveaOai  =  ns»,  means 
not  merely  giving  a  reply  to  a  previous  question,  but  beginning  to 
speak  in  general — a  use  of  the  word  well-known,  and  of  frequent  oc- 
currence in  the  Gospels.  In  ver.  61,  instead  of  KV  r^  ovyyeveia,  Codd. 
A.B.C.L.  read  etc  rrjg  ovyyeveiag,  which  Lachmann  has  rightly  pre- 
ferred. In  the  question  TO  rl  dv  QiXoi  K.  r.  A.,  the  r6  stands  as  con- 
necting with  the  verb  the  whole  clause  which  contains  the  question. 
It  is  used  similarly  in  Mark  ix.  23.) 

Ver.  63-65. — The  father  decides  for  the  mother  (ver.  60),  and 
writes  down  the  name  John.  (Aeyetv,  in  connexion  with  ypdfyeiv,  has 
only  the  general  meaning,  "to  declare/'  "to  make  known  one's 
mind,"  as  in  Luke  iii.  4,  and  in  the  oft-recurring  phrase,  /Leyei  tf 
ypafyfi.  Hivatctdtov  =  ypafipaTidiov,  a  little  writing  tablet. 

Agreeably  to  the  prediction  (ver.  20),  the  punishment  of  unbe- 
lief inflicted  on  Zacharias  was  removed  after  the  birth  of  the  child. 
He  speaks,  and  immediately  makes  use  of  his  tongue  to  proclaim 
the  praises  of  God,  who  had  so  glorified  himself  in  the  fulfilment  of 
his  promises.  (As  dveu%6r)  did  not  seem  to  agree  well  with  y/twaaa, 
some  Codd.  of  inferior  value  have  added  tkvdrj,  dirjpOpcodr],  which  may 
properly  enough  be  supplied.)  As  the  sense  of  a  higher  superin- 
tendence in  these  events  forced  itself  upon  those  present,  they  were 
seized  with  the  holy  awe,  seen  in  those  who  fear  God,  when  divine 
influence  comes  perceptibly  near  them.  (See  note  on  Luke  i.  12.) 
What  had  happened  in  the  family  was  spread  by  report  through  the 
whole  neighbourhood.  It  was  confined,  however,  to  the  hill  country 
(dpeivrj  i.  39),  without  reaching  Jerusalem,  the  theocratic  centre. 
Undreamed  of  by  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  the  mightiest  events  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  were  preparing  among  the  simple-minded. 
t,  to  be  talked  or  spoken  of  up  and  doivn,  Luke  vi.  11. 
,  after  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  ns-i,  see  Luke  i.  37.) 
He  who  does  not  agree  with  Schleiermacher,  in  regarding  this  naiv 

the  24th  June  to  that  purpose,  evidently  from  the  datum  supplied  by  the  Bible,  that 
Elisabeth  was  with  child  six  months  earlier  than  Mary.  They  reckoned  six  months 
backward  from  the  25th  December. 


228  LUKE  I.  65-67. 

rative  as  "  a  charming  little  invention  by  a  Christian  of  the  refined 
Judaizing  school,"  will  have  no  hesitation  in  taking  -the  fact  of  the 
healing  of  Zacharias,  as  well  as  his  dumbness,  and  the  angelic  ap- 
pearances, as  historically  true.  In  the  light  of  Scripture  we  see  that 
all  physical  phenomena  subserve  moral  and  spiritual  development ; 
and,  if  this  event  be  thus  viewed  as  discipline  for  Zacharias,  any  ob- 
jection to  its  historical  character  must  arise  from  a  false  view  of  the 
fundamental  relation  in  which  God  stands  to  the  world.  If  we  do 
not  conceive  of  God  as  an  extra-mundane  being,  who  leaves  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature  to  roll  on  according  to  laws  left  to  themselves, 
but  as  sustaining  the  world  by  his  breath,  and  as  the  inherent  cause 
of  all  physical  phenomena,  then  the  miracle  lies  not  in  the  single 
external  fact  (which  always  has  its  connexion  in  laws  higher  or  lower, 
known  or  unknown  ;  for  the  Spirit  of  God  itself  is  the  law),  but  in 
the  harmonious  agreement  of  the  individual  phenomenon  with  the 
highest  interests  of  the  whole.  Without  this  agreement  the  miracle 
would  be  on  a  level  with  a  magical  trick.  (See  more  fully  on  this 
subject  the  note  on  Matth.  viii.  1.)  The  supposition,  that  we  have 
here  not  a  fact,  but  a  myth  (apart  from  the  general  reasons  already 
mentioned,  which  forbid  the  supposition  of  myths  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  at  all),  is  further  discountenanced  by  the  circumstance, 
that  such  a  fabrication  as  the  infliction  of  dumbness  for  a  punish- 
ment, is  most  improbable,  since  it  is  altogether  destitute  of  analogy.* 
There  is  surely  in  the  whole  transaction  no  internal  contradiction 
which  forms  an  argument  against  its  historical  character.  It  is  only 
the  dogmatic  prejudice  of  a  school  that  boasts  its  freedom  from 
prejudice,  which  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  miracle,  declares  the  whole 
account  mythical ! 

Ver.  66. — A  passing  reference  is  made  to  the  impression  pro- 
duced in  the  neighbourhood  by  these  events  in  the  family  of  Zach- 
arias. In  this  way,  expectations  of  the  importance  of  the  infant 
were  excited,  which  his  progress  fully  justified. 

(Xetp  Kvpiov  =  rrtrp  -r ,  the  hand  of  the  Lord.  The  hand,  as  the 
most  general  organ  of  action,  is  here  viewed  in  the  light  of  protect- 
ing and  blessing.  That  this  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with  the  child  in 
his  growth,  is  mentioned  by  anticipation,  in  order  to  intimate  that 
men's  expectations  were  realized.  The  phrase  ndevai  h>  ry  /cap&'a, 
lay  up  in  the  heart  =  &to,  with  the  prepositions  V?,  V^,  s,  with  aV, 
includes,  not  merely  retaining  in  the  memory,  but  also  turning  over 
and  considering  the  matter  with  interest.) 

Ver.  67. — There  is  not,  properly  speaking,  any  break  here,  as 

*  Straws  does  not  hesitate,  notwithstanding  this  decisive  point,  to  hold  to  his  opinion, 
even  in  the  second  edition  of  his  work  (B.  i.,  S.  141),  though  the  production  of  analogies 
is  the  only  means  which  ho  has  in  order  to  give  the  semblance  of  support  to  his  arbitrary 


LUKE  I.  67-69.  229 

ver.  66  only  anticipates  certain  thoughts.  The  following  prophetic 
words  of  Zacharias  are  rather  in  immediate  connexion  with  ver.  64. 
(On  -vev^ia  ayiov,  see  note  on  ver.  15,  41.)  It  is  only  to  such  an 
elevated  moment,  in  which  heavenly  power  strengthened  Zacharias, 
bodily  and  spiritually,  and  raised  him  above  himself,  that  the  follow- 
ing words  are  suited,  in  which  he  speaks  prophetically  of  his  son'a 
relation  to  the  Messiah,  and  of  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  hopes  which 
the  seers  of  the  Old  Testament  had  excited.  Zacharias  begins  with 
the  main  subject  (ver.  68-75),  and  then  places  John  (ver.  76-79)  as 
exercising  a  preparatory  influence,  in  his  proper  relation  to  our 
Lord,  in  whom  all  the  promises  of  the  prophets  are  fulfilled. 
Although  here,  too,  the  work  of  the  Messiah  is  referred  immediately 
to  the  people  of  Israel,  and  the  whole  representation  bears  a  national 
colouring,  it  is  yet  free  from  any  alloy  of  error  ;  for  which  reason 
those  special  references,  as  they  are  based  on  a  truly  moral  concep- 
tion of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  (ver.  74,  75),  admit  the  same 
general  application,  which  we  have  already  vindicated  above  (ver. 
16,  54.)  The  language  finally  is  so  strongly  tinctured  with  He- 
braisms, that  it  may  be  re-translated,  word  for  word,  into  Hebrew 
—  a  circumstance,  which,  as  already  hinted,  makes  it  extremely 
probable  that  we  have  here  presented  to  us  family  memoirs,  which 
Luke  adopted  as  he  found  them.  As  such,  these  precious  narratives 
have  a  double  value,  because  they  throw  light  on  the  circle  of  ideas 
in  which  John  grew  up  :  and  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever  in  sup- 
posing that  he  was  made  familiar  with  these  by  conversation  and  pos- 
itive instruction,  as  it  is  only  in  the  case  of  the  Saviour  that  we  are 
compelled  to  suppose  an  absolutely  free  development  fro"m  within. 

Ver.  68,  69.  —  In  true  prophetic  inspiration  Zacharias  contem- 
plates, as  completed,  the  work  of  salvation,  which  appeared  now  in 
its  germ,  in  the  birth  of  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah  (for  which  rea- 
son the  Aorists  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Futures).*  His 
unbelief  (ver.  20)  appears,  therefore,  here  transmuted  into  the 
most  assured  faith,  which  enabled  him  to  behold  unseen  things  as 
visibly  present.  (On  6  6eo^  rov  'lerpcw/A.,  the  God  of  Israel,  see  note 
on  ver.  16.  It  expresses  only  the  genuine  limitations  of  Scripture, 
such  as  were  recognized  by  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles.  The 
relation  of  the  Israelites  to  the  Lord  was  different  from  that  of  all 
other  nations.)  In  the  birth  of  his  son  —  whom  Zacharias,  how- 
ever, views  only  in  connexion  with  the  appearance  of  Christ  —  he 
sees  a  rich  visitation  of  God's  favour,  after  long  waiting  on  the  part 
of  the  pious.  ('^moKETrreodai  is  used  quite  like  ij^a  in  the  Old  Tes- 


*  This  description  ill  accords  with  the  supposition  that  the  Gospels  were  fabricated  in 
the  second  c*entury,  and  falsely  ascribed  to  the  apostles;  for  at  that  time  the  Church  had 
acquired  so  little  external  splendour,  that  no  one  could  have  been  prompted  to  such  de- 
scriptions by  its  condition. 


230  LUKE  I.  69-71. 

tament,  which  denotes  a  visitation  for  punishment,  as  well  as  for  de- 
liverance [here  of  course  the  latter].  Avrpuoig,  redemption  = rifts,  see 
more  fully  on  the  idea  in  note  on  Matth.  xx.  28. — Ver.  75  plainly  for- 
bids our  thinking  of  political  deliverance  merely  ;  but  that  Zacharias 
connected  external  blessings  with  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  is 
more  than  probable,  and,  regarding  the  work  of  the  Messiah  as  com- 
pleted, not  erroneously.)  In  sending  the  Messiah,  divine  grace  was 
revealed  as  both  saving  and  defending.  (Kepaf  aw-T/ptaf,  horn  of 
salvation  =  nsw  ^n;*,  Psalm  xviii.  3,  is  used  here  with  reference  to 
passages  like  Psalm  cxxxii.  17,  where  we  read  of  the  "  horn  of  David." 
The  point  of  comparison  in  the  figure  is  the  power,  which  is  here 
conceived  as  protecting  the  godly,  and  punishing  enemies.) 

Yer.  70. — The  whole  matter  is  at  once  connected  with  the  hal- 
lowed company  of  ancient  seers,  who  had  predicted  the  general  fact 
(the  redemption  of  the  people),  as  well  as  the  special  one,  that  a 
descendant  of  David  should  accomplish  it.  (Kaflwf  eAaA7?<7e  sc.  6 
0e<5£,  as  God  spake,  etc.,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  whole  previous  sen- 
tence.) The  prophets  are  conceived  as  stretching  in  a  continuous 
succession  through  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  of  our  en- 
tire race.  The  result  of  their  prophecies  appeared  at  last  realized. 
('ATT'  al&vos,  IK  TOV  altivof,  and  similar  forms  of  expression,  are 
used  with  an  indefiniteness  which  must  be  more  precisely  deter- 
mined by  the  context.  They  always  require,  however,  that  the 
subject  spoken  of  should  be  carried  back  to  the  beginning  of  the 
period  [a/wv]  to  which  it  naturally  belongs.  [See  Luke  i.  2,  d-rr' 
dp^fc.]  Here  the  context  indicates  a  reference  of  d-rr'  al&vog  to 
the  origin  of  the  Jewish  nation — that  is,  to  Abraham  [ver.  73], 
unless  it  is  preferable  to  go  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  human 
race  itself,  since  the  earliest  advocates  of  righteousness  and  of  the 
fear  of  God  are  conceived  as  prophets.  [2  Peter  ii.  5  ;  Jude,  ver. 
14.]  See  more  fully  on  al6v  in  note  on  Matth.  xii.  31.) 

Ver.  71. — After  the  intermediate  thought,  the  idea  of  the  salva- 
tion is  again  taken  up  from  ver.  69,  and  is  viewed,  first  of  all,  as  de- 
liverance from  enemies  (e^flpo/,  inaov^oC).  In  these  words  the  po- 
litical view  of  the  Messiah's  influence  appears  to  come  out  most 
definitely,  and  assuredly  it  is  here  not  to  be  altogether  rejected. 
Here,  as  in  ver.  47,  there  combined  itself  with  Zacharias'  view  of  the 
appearance  of  the  Messiah,  the  contemplation  of  his  completed  work, 
in  which  the  outward  corresponds  to  the  inward,  as  will  be  the  case 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  that  very  glance  at  the  distant  future, 
shows  that  the  idea  of  enemies  is  to  be  taken  in  a  deeper  sense,  and 
includes  all  whose  life  was  under  the  influence  of  hostile  principles. 
Then,  too,  this  salvation  is  only  one  aspect  of  the  Messiah's  work ; 
it  has  its  completion  in  the  serving  in  holiness  and  righteousness, 
harpeveiv  iv  dcfiorrjri  /cat  dutaioavvq  (ver.  74),  and  thus  also  the  awr 


LUKE  I.  73-75.  231 

££  e;\;0pwv,  salvation  from  enemies,  acquires  a  deeper  meaning,  since 
the  mere  freeing  from  the  dominion  of  the  Romans  would  fail  to 
confer  any  true  holiness  and  righteousness. 

Ver.  72,  73.  —  The  construction  proceeds  entirely  after  the  He- 
brew mode  (the  infinitives  irotijaai,  nvrjoOrjvai,  are  put  for  the  common 
form  dg  TO  Troi-^aai  =  non  nV»»V,  see  "Winer's  Grammar  of  New 
Testament  Idioms,  p.  256)  ;  TroiTioai  tfAeof,  to  perform  mercy,  etc.,  is 
evidently  not  added  as  something  different  from  the  aurrjpia  (ver. 
71)  ;  but  merely  unfolds  it.  In  the  words  :  -rroiijaai  eXeog  K.  r.  A.,  it 
is  not  the  present  that  is  spoken  of,  but  the  past.  By  the  present 
salvation,  mercy  was  to  be  shewn  also  to  the  fathers  in  the  past. 
(TLoielv  K/teog  fterd  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew  &»  -roh  h»s  "  to 
be  gracious  to  any  one"  —  "  to  shew  favour."  Gen.  xxiv.  14.)  This 
thought  is  peculiarly  calculated  to  bring  out  the  spirituality  and 
depth  of  view  expressed  in  Zacharias'  conceptions  of  the  Messiah. 
The  work  of  the  Messiah  is  viewed  as  a  saving  one  to  the  whole  body 
of  their  forefathers,  since  in  him  first  they  all  really  received  salva- 
tion and  forgiveness,  which  they  had  believed  in  up  to  the  time  of 
his  manifestation.  The  deliverance  from  enemies  appears  here  to  be 
such  as  confers  benefits  on  the  dead  also  ;  and  this  shews  clearly 
enough,  that  the  enmity*  —  salvation  from  which  is  celebrated  —  is  to 
be  viewed  as  essentially  deeper  in  its  character.  (The  reference  to 
the  covenant  and  oath  sworn  to  Abraham  is  put,  as  a  part  only,  for 
the  whole  of  the  revelations  and  promises  of  God  to  the  forefathers. 
The  idea  of  the  divine  oath  [6'pK°r]  implies  something  inviolable, 
and  consequently,  now  fulfilled  by  the  faithful  God.  It  is  best  to 
construe  6'p/cov  also  with  {ivrjodiivai  [see  Is.  Ixiii.  7  ;  Wisd.  of  Sol. 
xviii.  22],  so  that  it  stands  parallel  with  diadrjicrjc;.) 

Ver.  74,  75.  —  Zacharias,  resuming  the  idea  of  the  Gurr$ia  in  the 
words  :  KK  %«pof  TGJV  £%0pc5v  TJ/MV  pvodevrag,  being  delivered  from  the 
hand  of  our  enemies,  now  adds  a  second  thought,  expressive  of  a  new 
effect  of  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  which  exhibits  itself  at  the 
present  time  —  (i,  e.,  according  to  the  prophetic  view  of  Zacharias, 
who  beheld  the  kingdom  of  God  already  complete)  —  viz.,  d<j)6(3ug 
Xarpeveiv  6e£>  tv  daiorirri  KOI  duccuoovvq,  to  serve  God  without  fear  in 
holiness  and  righteousness.  In  its  connexion  with  the  rov  dovvai  r\\tiv^ 
to  give  to  us,  the  clause  marks  the  true  worship  of  God,  described 
in  it,  as  an  effect  and  a  gift  resulting  from  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  It  is  not  a  mere  consequence  of  the  withdrawal  of  ene- 
mies, requiring  the  emphasis  to  be  laid  on  a'06/3^,  but  something 


*  To  apply  it  merely  to  political  enemies,  as  the  Romans,  is  inadmissible.  They  are 
not  indeed,  to  be  excluded  altogether  ;  and  Zacharias  was  not  in  error,  iu  anticipating 
an  aiured  political  condition  of  his  nation;  it  was  nothing  but  the  sin  of  the  Jews  that 
had  made  them  then  subject  to  the  Romans,  as  they  had  before  been  to  the  Chaldeans  — 
true  repentance  would  have  made  them  free  again. 


232  LUKE  I.  75-77. 

newly  bestowed — never  before  realized.  The  words  are  parallel 
with  all  those  passages  of  the  prophets  which  connect  ,the  estab- 
lishment of  righteousness  with  the  appearance  of  the  Mesiash. 
This  view  alone  is  in  agreement  with  what  follows  in  ver.  77,  where 
Zacharias  first  speaks  of  the  gift  of  the  knowledge  of  deliverance, 
and  of  its  connexion  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  while  John  was 
to  awaken  the  feeling  of  need,  the  Saviour  was  appointed  to  pro- 
vide the  holiness  and  righteousness  themselves,  and  the  Aarpei'a, 
service,  which  springs  from  them.  A.arpeveiviv  UOLOTTJTI  aal  ditcatoovvq, 
to  serve  in  holiness,  etc.,  may  be  appropriately  compared  with  Trpotr- 
Kvvelv  iv  TrvevfiaTi  not  dJifjdeia,  worship  in  spirit  and  truth  (John  iv. 
23),  which  also  stands  connected  with  the  appearing  of  the  Messiah. 
In  Ephes.  iv.  24,  both  terms  (daioTrjg  and  SutaLoavvrj)  are  used,  just 
as  in  this  place,  to  mark  the  new  man  created  after  God.  (See  also 
1  Thess.  ii.  10  ;  Tit.  i.  8.)  The  two  terms  here  include  the  whole 
extent  of  true  piety.  Only,  uotog  =  T>?ft,  holy,  applies  rather 
to  the  pious  man's  relation  to  God  ;  ditcacog  =  p-s  righteous,  to  his 
relation  to  his  fellows.*  kutaioavvr],  righteousness,  is  here  conceived 
more  after  the  manner  of  the  Old  Testament.  (See  more  fully  on 
this  point  in  note  on  Bom.  iii.  21.)  In  the  concluding  words  of 
ver.  75,  Trdoag  rag  jj/iepof  fjfj&v,  all  our  days,  a  more  earthly  concep- 
tion of  Messiah's  kingdom  seems  again  to  shew  itself,  since  its  glory 
is  limited  to  the  duration  of  life.  The  words  may,  however,  be 
viewed  as  a  simple  expression  of  the  indefinitely  protracted  enjoy- 
ment of  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah,  whose  kingdom  is  most  plainly 
designated  (in  ver.  33)  as  a  lasting  one.  (The  words  r7\q  faijs  are 
spurious  ;  they  were  added  as  explanatory  of  7//w3v.) 

Ver.  76. — Zacharias  now  first  speaks  of  his  son,  and  of  his  rela- 
tion to  the  Saviour  as  his  prophet  and  forerunner,  (npo^?/-^ 
in^ioTov,  prophet  of  the  highest,  stands  in  contrast  with  v leg  viftio-ov, 
Son  of  the  highest,  verse  32.  On  Kafolodai,  see  note  on  Luke  i.  35.) 
TLponopeveadai,  go  before,  and  Kroipdaai  odovg,  prepare  his  ivays,  de- 
scribe John's  work  according  to  the  terms  of  the  Old  Testament. 
(See  Isa.  xl.  3,  and  note  on  Matth.  iii.  3.)  That  work  was  to 
awaken  a  sense  of  need,  the  satisfying  of  which  was  to  be  ac- 
complished by  the  Saviour  himself.  The  words :  -npo  -rrpoa^ov 
Kvpiov,  before  the  face  of  the  Lord,  contain  again,  as  in  verse  43,  an 
intimation  of  the  divine  nature  of  the  Messiah,  to  which  we  are 
also  led  by  the  actions  ascribed,  and  the  epithets  applied  to  him  in 
the  following  words.  The  extent  and  clearness  of  Zacharias'  views 
respecting  the  mystery  of  the  manifestation  of  God  to  mankind, 
cannot  be  further  determined.  Probably  the  stream  of  divine  light 

*  See  Polybivs  (xxiii.  10,  8),  who  thus  characterizes  these  relations :  rd  /ztv  npdf 
rot)f  dvOpunovf  6inaia,  rd  <5£  Trpdf  roi)f  0eoi)f  oats. 


LUKE  I.  77,  78.  233 

which  poured  through  his  soul  at  this  sacred  moment,  bore  him 
beyond  the  bounds  of  his  everyday  knowledge. 

Ver.  77. — Zacharias  proceeds  to  describe  the  labours  of  John, 
using  the  same  construction  as  above,  verse  74,  ff.  The  yv&ais 
<ro)T7/p/ac,  knowledge  of  salvation,  is  specified  as  the  object  of  his 
preparatory  labours.  The  Lord  himself  gives  the  salvation  (verse 
71),  John  awakens  the  perception  of  its  necessity.  (The  special 
connexion  of  this  yv&au;  with  the  kabg  Qeov,  appears  here  as  in  verse 
68.)  There  can  be  no  doubt  how  the  following  clause  :  iv  dfaaei 
dpap-itiv,  in  the  remission  of  sins,  should  be  connected.  The  salva- 
tion itself  consists  in  this,  and,  as  a  divine  act  (Psalm  xlix.  8,  9), 
it  can  proceed  only  from  God.  (The  clause  is  best  completed  thus, 
oMrrjpiag  iv  d$£Gsi  dpapTi&v  ovaqs,  salvation  consisting  in  ilie  remis- 
sion of  sins.)  The  forgiveness  of  sin  appears  here,  consequently, 
as  the  grand  prerogative  of  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  which  was 
lacking  to  the  Old  Testament  economy.  (Comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  33-34.) 
The  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Covenant  could  not  effect  an  inward,  es- 
sential remission,  but  merely  tcadaporrjg  rrjg  aapK.6^,  purifying  of  the 
flesh  (Heb.  ix.  13),  inasmuch  as  they  restored  its  interrupted  rela- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament  theocracy.  Sin  itself  remained  under 
divine  sufferance.  (See  note  on  Kom.  iii.  25.)  But  in  the  New 
Testament  essential  forgiveness  was  bestowed,  on  the  one  hand,  by 
the  actual  removal  of  the  consequences  of  sin ;  on  the  other,  by 
the  implanting  in  man  of  a  new,  higher  life — that  of  holiness  and 
righteousness.  The  purity  of  Zacharias'  views  of  the  Messiah  is 
here  strikingly  evident ;  and  hence  we  must  from  this  passage, 
gather  a  more  precise  meaning  for  the  previous  indefinite  expres- 
sions, if  we  wish  to  interpret  the  speaker  by  himself. 

Ver.  78. — The  sending  of  the  sin-destroyer  is  now  set  forth  as 
the  effluence  of  God's  mercy  (just  as  in  John  iii.  16),  and  thus 
Zacharias  is  led  back  to  the  Saviour  himself ;  so  that  the  view  of 
his  son  merges,  as  it  were,  in  the  wider,  grander  view  of  the  work 
of  Christ,  just  as  John  himself  modestly  withdraws  behind  the 
Saviour  (John  iii.  30),  as  the  morning  star  fades  before  the  rising 
sun.  (27rAay%va  =  ertttn  frequently  in  the  LXX.,  thence  a-rAay- 
Xvi$aO(u.  The  term  is  derived  from  the  lower  organs  below  the 
heart  being  regarded  as  the  seat  of  the  purely  sympathetic  emo- 
tions ;  but  especially  the  womb  [a^n,  uterus'],  which,  as  the 
organ  of  maternity,  was  put  for  mother's  love.  In  some  respects, 
therefore,  the  term  appears  to  denote  the  lowest  grade  of  love,  as 
if  it  were  purely  physical  love.  But,  because  this  shews  itself  to 
be,  at  the  same  time,  the  most  immediate  and  the  strongest,  it  is 
used  also  to  denote  the  love  of  God,  in  order  to  express  its  essential 
and  immediate  nature,  of  which  maternal  love  is  but  a  faint  image. 
The  addition  of  ikiovs,  mercy,  defines  the  divine  love  more  precisely 


234  LUKE  I.  78-SO ;  II.  1. 

to  be  such  as  is  directed  towards  the  miserable — the  unfortunate.) 
As  the  effect  of  the  divine  compassion,  Zacharias  now  brings  for- 
ward the  appearance  (see  note  on  smoKerr-sodai,  verse  68)  of  the 
dvarokrj  i%  vipov<;,  day-spring  from  on  high.  The  terms  imtyavai,  to 
give  light,  and  icarevdvvai,  to  guide,  used  in  the  following  verse,  shew 
that  the  Messiah  is  called  a  day-spring  as  being  the  light  of  men, 
</)£>£  T&V  dvdpdmuv.  In  itself,  the  term  might  be  appropriately  com- 
pared with  the  Hebrew  nw^,  shoot,  according  to  passages  such  as 
Isa.  iv.  2  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5  ;  Zech.  iii.  8  ;  vi.  12  (where  the  LXX.  trans- 
late it  by  dvaroXri),  but  that  the  word  i-nifyavat  following  it,  seems 
to  make  the  former  view  preferable.  The  rising,  namely,  is  put  for 
the  rising  sun  itself  (Mai.  iv.  2),  which  gives  light  to  the  wanderers, 
and  shews  them  the  right  way.  The  addition  of  tf  v^ovg,  from  on 
high,  marks  the  phenomenon  as  a  heavenly  one,  descending  hither 
from  a  higher  system.  ("Ti/>of  =  tmtt.) 

Ver.  79. — In  these  concluding  words  there  is  reference  to  pas- 
sages in  the  Old  Testament  (particularly  Isa.  ix.  1 ;  Ix.  1),  in  which 
the  Saviour  is  described  as  the  light  of  a  world  shut  up  in  the  night 
of  ignorance  and  alienation  from  God.  (See  Matth.  iv.  16.)  The 
expression  :  KV  OKIO,  davdrov  KaOrj^evoi,  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
Hebrew  M.5>is  -f^a  las)11.,  Isa.  ix.  1.  (On  fi.i^s,  see  note  on  Matth. 
iv.  16.)  Lastly,  restoration  to  the  way  of  peace  is  described  as  the 
result  of  the  enlightening  of  those  who  sit  in  darkness.  ('06b$ 
elpi'ivrjg,  way  of  peace,  denotes  that  walk,  that  course  of  life,  which 
is  carried  on  with  inward  peace,  and  leads  thither  as  its  final  aim. 
This  presupposes  the  absence  of  peace  in  those  that  sit  in  darkness.) 

Ver.  80. — A  concluding  formula,  which  depicts,  in  its  general 
features,  the  physical  and  spiritual  growth  of  the  Baptist,  and 
speaks  of  his  life  up  to  the  time  of  his  public  appearance,  con- 
cludes the  family  history  of  Zacharias.  A  similar  formula  closes 
likewise  the  family  history  of  Mary  (ii.  40,  52),  which  may  indicate, 
perhaps,  that  both  memoirs  are  by  the  same  author.  The  words  : 
r\v  KV  ralg  ip^oi^,  he  was  in  the  deserts,  refer  to  i.  15,  and  denote 
the  Nazarite  character  of  the  Baptist's  life.  ("Ep7?juof  =  is-rfc.  does 
not  mean  strictly  a  desert,  but  still  a  comparatively  uninhabited 
tract  of  country.  The  solitude  of  his  early  life  seems  intended  to  be 
contrasted  with  the  dvddei^,  shelving,  as  the  formal  opening  of  his 
official  labours  as  a  prophet.  On  dvadsiitvviu,  see  note  on  Luke  x.  1.) 

§  5.  BIRTH,   CIRCUMCISION,  AND  PRESENTATION  OF  JESUS  IN  THE 

TEMPLE. 

(Luke  ii.  1-40.) 

A  few  months  after  the  birth  of  John,  Jesus  was  also  born. 
The  Evangelist  first  narrates  how,  by  the  leading  of  Providence,  an 


LUKE  II.  1,  2.  235 

external  political  circumstance  was  made  the  occasion  of  Mary's 
journeying  from  Nazareth,  her  usual  dwelling-place  (Luke  i.  56),  to 
Bethlehem,  the  original  residence  of  her  family,  where,  agreeably  to 
the  prophecies,  the  Messiah  was  then  bora.  (See  note  on  Matth.  ii. 
6.)  A  decree  of  the  heathen  emperor  Augustus  brought  the 
mother  of  our  Lord  to  the  city  of  David,  to  shew  that  "  the  king's 
heart  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord  as  the  rivers  of  water  :  he  turneth 
it  whithersoever  he  will."  (Prov.  xxi.  1.) 

Ver.  1.  —  The  previous  verse  gave  by  anticipation,  and  only  briefly, 
some  notices  about  the  Baptist.  The  words  iv  fadvaig  rjftepai^,  in 
those  days,  refer,  therefore,  to  the  history  of  John's  birth  detailed 
in  the  former  chapter.  The  passage  contains  some  not  inconsidera- 
ble historical  difficulties,  which  have  been  employed  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  mythical  interpretation,  to  demonstrate  the  unhistorical 
character  of  Luke's  Gospel.  However,  Savigny's  investigations  into 
the  Roman  taxation,  contained  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  geschichtliche 
JRechtswissenschaft,  B.  vi.,have  shewn  that  Augustus  did,  in  fact,  con- 
template the  introduction  of  a  uniferm  system  of  taxation  throughout 
the  whole  Roman  empire  —  a  fact  which  had  long  been  doubted.  (Liv. 
epit.  lib.  134  ;  Dio.  Cass.,  liii.  22  ;  Isidor.  orig.,  v.  36  ;  Cassidor, 
iii.  52  ;  Suidas,  s.  v.,  a7roypa0??.)  That  this  undertaking  was  ex- 
tended to  Palestine,  too,  though  not  at  that  time  a  Roman  province, 
is  divested  of  all  that  appears  strange,  if  we  take  the  drroypatyri  to 
mean  the  mere  registering  of  the  landed  estates,  and  not  an  assess- 
ment of  property  —  the  proper  term  for  which  is  d-n-cmp^  .  The 
emperor  might  well  take  the  liberty  of  making  such  a  register,  con- 
sidering the  dependence  of  the  Jewish  kings  on  him,  a  dependence 
so  great  that  the  Jews  had,  along  with  the  oath  of  allegiance  to 
Herod,  to  take  one  to  the  emperor.  (See  Tholuck's  G-laubwiirdig- 
keit  der  evangelischen  G-eschichte,  S.  191.) 

Ver.  2.  —  The  words  of  ver.  2,  which  seem  to  fix  the  enrolment 
with  greater  historical  precision,  are  still  more  difficult,  since  the 
most  obvious  meaning  does  not  agree  with  the  accounts  of  historians  ; 
for  the  Kvpijviog*  (Quirinus)  here  spoken  of  was  proconsul  of  Syria 
at  a  much  later  period,  since,  about  the  close  of  Herod's  life,  Sentius 
Saturninus,  after  him,  Quinctilius  Varus,  and  not  till  after  both  of 
them,  Publius  Sulpicius  Quirinus,  were  respectively  invested  with 
this  dignity.  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  13  ;  Tacit,  annal.,  iii.  68.)  If,  there- 
fore, the  census  were  meant,  which,  according  to  Joseph,  xviii.  i.  1, 
was  made  by  Quirinus  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  the  birth  of  Jesus 
would  have  to  be  placed  ten  years  later  —  whereby  the  whole  chrono- 


*  Joscphus  (Ant.  xviii.  1,  1)  says  of  him:  Kvpyvioc  6£,  T&V  etc;  r?)v  flov 
dv!/p.  nit;  Tf  d/lArtf  dpxuf  tiriTETefeKuf,  Kal  diu  TTuauv  6(^Evcaf  &f  Ko.1  virarof  -yeveaOai,  rd 
re  <j.7J.a  d^itJfj.ari  fJ-eyaf,  avv  okiyoiq  enl  'Zvpiaf  napf/v,  imd  Kaiaapof  diKaiodorijc  rov  Idvov; 
'f,  Kal  TIJJ.J]TT}<;  TUV  ovaiuv 


236  LUKE  II.  2. 

logy  would  be  thrown  into  confusion.*  According  to  both  Matthew 
(ii.  1,  19)  and  Luke  (i.  5,  compared  with  iii.  1,  23),  the  Saviour  was 
born  during  the  reign  of  Herod  ;  a  census,  consequently,  under  this 
monarch  could  have  been  carried  into  effect  only  by  the  proconsul 
Seritius  Saturninus,  to  whom,  indeed,  Tertullian  (adv.  Marc.  iv.  19) 
assigns  it,  without  any  historical  confirmation,  but  probably  by  con- 
jecture only.  From  this  passage  we  cannot  so  much  as  conclude 
that  there  was  a  different  reading  in  the  MSS.  used  by  Tertullian. 
But  even  if  there  were,  it  would  have  no  value,  since  it  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  correction  of  the  original  text.  As  the  common  text  has 
been  so  perfectly  established  by  the  critical  authorities,  none  of  the 
conjectures  that  have  been  hazarded  can  obtain  any  sanction.  Some 
have  wished  to  insert  npb  T%  between  npurr]  and  rjyefiovevovro^  K.  r.  A., 
so  that  the  sense  would  be  :  "  this  taxing  took  place  before  that 
(well-known  one)  under  the  proconsul  Quirinus."  It  would  be  bet- 
ter to  read  avrrj  instead  of  avrrj,  which  would  give  this  meaning  : 
"  the  taxing  itself  (the  taxation  proper,  the  real  carrying  out  of  the 
assessment  in  contradistinction  from  the  preparatory  registration)  did 
not  take  place  till  under  the  proconsulate  of  Quirinus."  The  change 
of  an  accent  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  change  in  the  text,  since  the 
oldest  MSS.  are  written  without  accents,  f  We  may  also  take  KpurT) 
for  irporepa  (as  John  i.  30 ;  xv.  18)  in  the  sense,  "  this  taxing  took 
place  before  the  proconsulate  of  Quirinus."  Yet  I  do  not  deny,  that 
the  observations,  by  which  Thohick,  in  his  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der 
evang.  Gesch.,  S.  182,  endeavours  to  defend  this  explanation,  are  not 

*  With  respect  to  the  time  of  Christ's  birth,  this  passage,  on  account  of  its  internal 
uncertainty,  cannot  well  bo  used  to  determine  the  year.  Besides  the  star  (see  note  on 
Matth.  ii.  2),  the  death  of  Herod,  before  the  end  of  whose  reign  Christ  was  born,  contributes 
to  the  determining  of  this  date.  He  died  according  to  Josephus  (Ant.  xvii.  9,  3).  shortly 
after  the  insurrection  of  a  certain  Matthias.  Herod  had  him  and  forty  companions  burnt 
on  a  night,  in  which  there  occurred  a  total  eclipse  of  the  moon,  which  was  soon  followed 
by  tho  Passover.  This  eclipse  took  place  in  the  night  of  the  12th  and  13th  March.  A.U.C. 
750 ;  and  as  there  were  no  eclipses  visible  in  Palestine  for  some  years  either  before  or 
after,  Christ  must  have  been  born  before  A.U.C.  'iaO.  His  birth,  then,  falls  in  a  time  of 
universal  peace,  on  which  the  fathers  lay  so  mucli  stress.  In  A.U.C.  746,  the  temple  of 
Janus  was  shut  on  the  return  of  Tiberius  from  Germany,  and  it  was  not  opened  again  till 
A.U.G.  752,  on  occasion  of  the  war  with  the  Parthians.  See  Jo.  Kepkri,  liber  de  J.  Chr. 
veraanno  natalitio.  Francf.  1606,  4;  Wurin's  astron.  Beitriige  zur  Bestimmung  des  Ge- 
burtsjahres  Jesu  in  BengeVs  Archiv.,  B.  ii.  St.  1 ;  and  further,  the  dissertation  on  the  year 
of  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Kleiber's  Stud.,  B.  i.,  H.  i.,  S.  50,  ff.  (Jesus  cannot  have  been  born 
later  than  the  beginning  of  March,  4710  of  the  Julian  period — i.  e.,  the  year  of  Herod's 
death,  A.U.C.  750),  and  the  supplement,  ib.,  H.  ii.,  S.  208,  ff.  With  respect  to  the  day  of 
our  Lord's  birth,  the  ancient  Alexandrine  church,  according  to  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
assigned  it  to  the  20th  May  (25th  Pachon);  while  in  tho  Western  church,  tho  25th  of 
December  was  fixed  for  it. 

f  This  is,  perhaps,  tho  most  natural  solution  of  the  difficulty.  Luke  directs  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  Saviour  was  born  precisely  at  the  moment  when  tho  first  preparatory 
steps  wore  taken  to  strip  Israel  of  its  independence,  and  make  it  tributary  to  the  Romans. 
-[E. 


LUKE  II.  2-7.  237 

quite  satisfactory  to  me  ;  (see  Winer's  Grammar  of  the  New  Test- 
ament Idioms,  p.  193)  ;  in  particular,  it  seems  to  me  harsh  to  take 
-rrpuTT]  Jiyepovevovrog  for  trpb  rov  rjyepoveveiv,  although  the  LXX.  have 
a  kindred  construction  in  Jer.  xxix.  2.  Be  that  as  it  may,  Tholuck, 
in  his  masterly  treatment  of  this  passage,  has  clearly  proved,  in 
answer  to  Strauss,  that,  even  supposing  all  the  difficulties  in  it 
should  not  be  solved,  we  can  draw  no  conclusion  thence  against  the 
credibility  of  Luke,  who  everywhere  shows  himself  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  Jewish  and  Koman  history,  and,  in  particular,  with 
that  first  complete  census  under  Quirinus.  (Compare  Acts  v.  37 
with  Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  1,  1.)  If,  on  the  most  accurate  historical 
inquiry,  Luke's  main  assertion,  so  long  doubted,  that  a  taxing  of 
the  whole  Roman  empire  took  place  under  Augustus,  is  confirmed, 
we  may  be  sure  that  the  minor  circumstance  he  mentions  will  also 
prove  correct. 

Ver.  3. — That  the  families  had  to  go  to  their  own  cities,  either 
was  the  result  of  the  state  policy  of  the  Romans,  who  accommodated 
themselves  to  the  Jewish  custom,  or  more  strictly  that  the  regis- 
tering, though  made  in  accordance  with  a  Roman  edict,  was  executed 
by  the  Jewish  kings,  according  to  Jewish  forms.  Mary's  accom- 
panying her  husband  was  not  from  any  legal  necessity  (the  Roman 
law  would  indeed  have  required  it :  Dion.  Halic.  Ant.  iv.  15)  but, 
as  shown  by  the  words  ovcy  ey/cvw,  because  Joseph  was  unwilling  to 
leave  her  in  her  pregnancy. 

Vcr.  4,  5. — The  fact  that  Mary  too  went  to  Bethlehem,  is  ex- 
plained also  on  the  supposition  of  her  being  an  heiress,  and  possess- 
ing landed  property  in  Bethlehem.  (See  note  on  Matth.  i.  1.)  As 
in  journeying  to  Jerusalem,  so  in  the  journey  to  Bethlehem,  the  term 
dvapaivEiv  =  r&y,  go  up,  has  the  secondary  signification,  implying  to 
go  up  to  what  is  elevated  in  a  moral  and  religious  point  of  view. 
(See  Gesenius  in  the  Lexicon,  s.  v.)  Mary's  being  called  fiefiv^arev- 
IJtevr],  ver.  5,  is  explained  by  Matth.  i.  25. 

Ver.  6,  7. — In  Bethlehem,  whither  the  taxing  had  brought 
them,  Mary  gave  birth  to  the  Saviour  of  the  world — in  the  deep- 
est seclusion.  ('ETrAr/a^aav  al  rjftepai  rov  renelv  avrrjv,  corre- 
sponds t6  the  Hebrew  n-to  rp»;>  SN^WJ.  See  Gen.  xxv.  24  ;  Luke  ii 
21.)  As  there  was  no  room  in  the  inn  (Kard^vpa  =  gevodoxelov),  she 
laid  the  infant  down  in  the  ^drvrj,  manger.  .(See  ver.  12,  16.)  This 
indicates  that  it  was  a  stable  which  the  mother  of  our  Lord  was 
obliged  to  choose  for  her  resting-place,  as  the  house  was  occupied. 
Ancient  tradition  speaks  of  a  OTTTJ^CUOV,  cave,  as  the  place  where  Jesus 
was  born.  They  were  frequently  used,  in  mountainous  districts,  as 
folds  for  flocks.  As  it  is  mentioned  as  early  as  Justin  Martyr  (dial. 
c.  Tryph.  Jud.,  p.  304),  and  Origen  (contra  Gels.  I.,  xi.  3),  and  is  in 
no  way  improbable  in  itself,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  looked  upon  as  es- 


238  LUKE  II.  7-14. 

tablished.  (On  Trpwroro/cof,  see  note  on  Matth.  i.  25.  STrapyavow,  to 
wrap  in  swaddling  clothes,  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  ver.  12.) 

Ver.  8,  9.8 — The  communication  of  the  news  of  what  took  place 
in  the  sacred  night  is  again  limited  to  the  humble  unknown  circle 
of  a  few  shepherd  families — to  whom  this  very  cave,  which  our  Lord 
chose  for  his  first  dwelling,  might  belong.  The  unostentatious  cha- 
racter which  adorns  the  whole  history  of  Jesus,  is  manifest  in  this 
feature  also.  The  shepherds  were,  doubtless,  like  Simeon,  ver.  25, 
waiting  for  the  consolation  of  Israel ;  the  angel  announced  to  their 
desire  the  fulfilment  of  all  God's  promises  in  Christ.  Although  ideas 
of  the  Messiah  were  spread  through  the  whole  nation,  yet  the  sacred 
Scriptures  make  a  distinction  between  the  rude,  carnal  expectations 
of  the  mass,  and  the  hopes  of  the  few  nobler  spirits,  which  were 
founded  on  a  deep-felt  religious  and  moral  need.  ('AypauAew,  to  re- 
main in  the  open  field,  particularly  by  night.  In  the  words  ajy^oq 
irceoTrj,  the  idea  of  something  sudden  and  unexpected  in  the  appear- 
ance is  conveyed.  Ao£a  tcvpiov  =  rnrn  -na:?,  the  radiant  light,  which 
is  imagined  as  floating  round  all  heavenly  appearances. 

Ver.  10,  11. — We  must  explain  the  contents  of  the  angeFs  an- 
nouncement by  the  previous  more  definite  passages.  (See  i.  17,  32, 
33,  74,  75,  78.)  As  the  idea  of  the  remission  of  sins  is  involved  in 
the  CTWTTfp,  Saviour  (ver.  78),  so  Kvpiog,  Lord,  implies  the  divine  dig- 
nity of  the  Sin-destroyer.  (On  Aa6f,  see  note  on  Luke  i.  68.) 

Ver.  12. — The  angel,  of  his  own  accord,  gives  to  the  believing 
shepherds  a  sign  (a^etov,  M'.N),  which  is  not  in  itself  necessarily 
a  miraculous  one.  Still  we  may  lay  the  stress  on  evp/fcrere,  ye 
"shall  find,  to  which  dvevpov,  they  found,  answers  in  ver.  16.  In 
that  case  we  need  seek  no  external  circumstances  by  which  the 
shepherds  were  guided  to  look  for  the  child  just  where  he  was  ;  a 
secret  spiritual  influence  guided  them  to  the  right  place  through  the 
darkness  of  the  night. 

Ver.  13. — This  representative  of  the  heavenly  world,  who  com- 
municated the  joyful  intelligence,  was  suddenly  joined  (&^aitj)vrjg 
ijKve.ro  =  i^ea~7j,  ver.  9)  by  a  heavenly  host  (arpa-ia  ovpdviog,  = 
b^n  N?S),  transferring  the  employments  of  their  higher  existence 
to  this  poor  earth,  which  so  rarely  echoes  with  the  pure  praise  of  God. 
In  this  appearance  there  is  prefigured  the  full  realization  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  which  secures  the  perfect  union  of  things  heavenly 
and  earthly. 

Ver.  14. — It  is  from  this  import  of  the  angel's  appearance,  and 
its  relation  to  the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  that  the  words  of  the  ansrelic 

'  O 

song  of  praise  are  to  be  explained.  Since  all  that  was  desired  was 
restored  by  the  Messiah,  and  his  work  is  contemplated  as  complete, 
it  is  more  suitable  to  supply  iari,  is,  than  ecru,  let  there  be,  which 
latter  gives  to  the  words  the  form  of  a  wish.  On  this  the  division 


LUKE  II.  14.  239 


of  the  words  depends.  If  we  put  a  period  after  <J6|a  tV  v^ioroig  6e<3, 
glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  it  would  not  be  suitable  to  supply  tori, 
is,  and  fc'arw,  let  there  be,  would  be  preferable,  which  would  make 
the  words  more  evidently  an  expression  of  thankful  joy  ;  but  then, 
ecn-w  must  be  supplied  for  the  latter  part  also  ;  and  thus  the  thought 
would  assume  the  form  of  a  kind  wish  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  future, 
while  it  is  infinitely  more  significant  to  take  it  as  an  enthusiastic 
announcement  of  what  is  present  in  the  Messiah.  Accordingly  that 
division  is  undoubtedly  preferable  which  places  a  period  after  yf/£, 
earth  ;  so  that  the  thought  is  this  :  "  God  is  now  glorified,  as  in 
heaven  (£v  in^iaroig  =.  tn-Dsa  in  contrast  with  &m  -nfc  y?fr),  so  on 
earth."  The  words  then  prominently  point  out  the  characteristic 
feature  of  Christ's  work  ;  He  makes  earth  heaven,  and  transplants 
hither  the  essence  of  heaven,  thus  fulfilling  his  own  prayer  : 
"  Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth."  In  the  language  of 
enthusiasm,  the  plant  of  God's  kingdom  is  represented  in  its  matur 
rity.  According  to  this  division,  elprjvr),  peace,  is  connected  with 
what  follows,  and  we  must  necessarily  read  cvdoaiag,  so  that  the 
whole  forms  but  two  parts.*  The  thought  of  the  second  half  thus 
connects  itself  very  naturally  with  the  subject  of  the  first.  As  the 
true  glory  of  God  (which.  results  from  the  recovery  of  the  lost)  is  re- 
stored by  the  Messiah,  so  also  is  peace  restored  on  this  earth  accus- 
tomed to  war,  both  externally  and  internally,  and  the  avdpurroi  opy?fc, 
men  of  wrath,  are  transformed  into  dvdpuiroi  evSoitiag,  men  of  good 
will.  The  critical  authorities  are  certainly  much  more  in  favour  of 
the  reading  evdonia  (only  Codd.  A.D.,  some  translations,  and  sev- 
eral fathers  defend  the  reading  evdoKiaq)  ;  still  an  erroneous  punctu- 
ation of  the  first  half  might  so  easily  make  an  alteration  appear 
necessary  in  the  second,  that  the  origin  of  the  reading  evdonia  is,  in 
that  way,  very  easy  to  be  accounted  for.  If  there  existed  a  further 
misunderstanding  of  the  import  of  the  words  as  a  lively  announce- 
ment of  the  present,  and  tVrw  was  supplied,  then  the  tripartite  di- 
vision appeared  the  easier,  inasmuch  as  it  seemed  incongruous  for 
men  to  be  called  avdpu-Kot  evdotciag  before  the  Saviour  had  finished 
his  work  and  exercised  his  influence.  The  song  of  praise  is  more 
spirited  and  profound,  if  we  take  it  as  consisting  of  two  parts,  and 
not  as  a  wish,  but  as  an  announcement  of  grace  bestowed.  Besides, 
with  the  threefold  division,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  tautology  in 
£TTI  yfjg  elpijvr],  peace  on  earth,  and  KV  dvdpunoig  evSoicia,  good  ivill  to 
men;  in  that  case  we  must  interpret  d^r\vr\^  very  superficially, 
of  external  peace  merely  in  the  relations  of  men  among  one  another  ; 
evdoKia  —  -p:sn,of  men's  relation  to  God.f 

*  The  preponderance  of  reasons  still  seems  to  me  to  be  in  favour  of  those  who  divide 
the  angelic  song  into  two  parts.  Men  such  as  Beza,  Mitt,  Bengel,  Nosselt,  Morus,  likewise 
viewed  the  passage  in  this  light. 

f  Against  this  twofold  division  is  the  unhebraistic  omission  of  /cat  before  tlpijvr).    The 


240  LUKE  II.  15-21. 

Ver.  15-17. — The  heavenly  ones  returned  to  their  heavenly  abode 
— the  men  went  to  Bethlehem,  found  what  was  foretold,  and  made 
known  what  they  had  witnessed  to  the  circle  of  like-minded  friends 
(ver.  18)  ;  for,  that  the  angels'  words  did  not  belong  to  the  multi- 
tude, was  well  understood  by  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed. 
(On  p^a,  see  note  on  Luke  i.  37.  Amyvwp^w  =  divulgo  scil.  ra  ~tpi 
rov  pT^mrof.) 

Ver.  18-20. — Those  who  heard  the  glorious  intelligence  were 
amazed  ;  the  shepherds  praised  God,  like  the  angels  (ver.  13), 
and  with  child-like  faith  viewed  what  they  had  seen  as  the  fulfil- 
ment of  that  which  was  foretold,  trusting  to  the  accounts  of  the 
mother  ;  but  Mary  thankfully  received  this  homage  as  a  confirma- 
tion of  her  faith.  (Svv-rjpeiv  implies  rather  active  remembrance  ; 
ovfiftdkheiv  i-v  rq  /cop&'a,  denotes  reflection  with  pleasurable  emotion 
and  interest.  In  ver.  51,  ev  rq  icapdia  is  connected  immediately  with 
dierijpei ;  and  thus  both  the  actions  of  the  memory  and  of  the  heart 
are  combined  in  one  expression.) 

Ver.  21. — Agreeably  to  the  Mosaic  law  (Lev.  xii.  3)  the  circum- 
cision of  the  child  was  performed  on  the  eighth  day,  and,  at  the 
same  time  the  name  of  Jesus  was  given  to  him,  as  the  angel  had 
commanded  (i.  31).  The  Son  of  God — the  pure  and  the  purifier — 
was  in  all  things  made  under  the  law  (Gal.  iv.  4);  and  as  he  ap- 
peared even  iv  dfioiupan  aagicbg  d^apr'tag,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh  (Rom.  viii.  3),  the  Father  called  him  to  undergo  circumcision 
also,  as  the  symbol  of  purification  from  the  aap|  duapriag,  sinful 
flesh.  In  all  respects  (Kara  ndvTa}  Heb.  ii.  17)  he  was  made  like  his 
brethren,  yet  without  sin.  (Heb.  iv.  15.)  This  divine  arrangement 
had,  in  the  first  place,  a  relation  to  the  work  of  the  Saviour.  In 
order  to  save  those  that  were  under  the  law  (Gal.  iv.  5),  he  himself 
descended  into  all  the  depths  of  human  misery,  and  with  toil  as- 
cended the  steps  which  the  Father  himself  had  appointed.  It  had 
a  relation  to  his  person  also.  Participation  in  the  cleansing  rites  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  not,  on  the  part  of  the  Saviour,  an  unmean- 
ing action  for  appearance'  sake,  but  one  of  essential  import.  Holy, 
pure,  and  perfect  in  his  divine  nature,  he  shared  in  his  human 
nature  our  common  infirmity.  He  was  dvr/rbg  crap/a,  mortal  in 
respect  to  the  flesh  (1  Peter  iii.  18),  and  the  temple  of  his  body 
was  only  gradually  spiritualized  to  d00apcrm,  incorruptiblcness, 
by  the  indwelling  of  the  heavenly  Spirit.  (See  note  on  Matth.  xvii. 
1,  ff.)  The  circumcision,  therefore,  the  participation  in  the  purifi- 
cation (ver.  22),  in  the  baptism  of  John,  and  in  all  the  sacrifices  in 
the  temple,  were  proofs  that  the  Saviour  declared  them  to  be  divine 

triple  division  is  perhaps  simpler.  The  angels  thus  rejoice,  1.  That  in  heaven  God  is 
honored  for  the  work  of  redemption  begun ;  2.  That  on  earth  a  kingdom  of  peace  is  es- 
tablished destined  to  terminate  strife ;  3.  That  between  heaven  and  earth  such  relations 
are  re-established  that  God  can  look  approvingly  on  men. — [E. 


LUKE  II.  22-24.  241 

institutions,  and  by  taking  part  in  them,  placed  himself,  in  one  ele- 
ment of  his  being,  on  an  equality  with  his  brethren.  True,  there 
was  no  absolute  necessity  of  this  method  of  bodily  perfection  to  the 
Saviour  (see  note  on  Matth.  iii.  15  -noi-nov  hrlv  ^tv),  as  there  was 
to  the  other  members  of  the  Jewish  nation  ;  in  whose  case  the 
omission  of  circumcision  would  have  occasioned  their  being  cut  off 
from  among  the  people.  But  the  harmony  of  God's  scheme  of  sal- 
vation required  just  this  form  of  development  in  his  human  life  ; 
agreeably  to  which,  by  means  of  this  sacred  act,  which  in  all  Israel- 
ites formed  and  strengthened  the  bond  of  the  covenant  with  God, 
he  was  received  as  a  member  of  the  theocracy  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  order  that,  after  he  had  attained  to  a  full  consciousness 
of  his  higher  nature,  he  might  raise  the  whole  community,  to  which 
he  was  so  variously  related,  to  his  own  higher  sphere  of  life. 

Ver.  22. — The  participation  in  the  KfiOaptopog,  purification,  is  ex- 
plained on  a  similar  principle.  The  woman  was  obliged,  according 
to  the  Jewish  law  (Lev.  xii.  1),  to  remain  at  home  as  unclean  for 
forty  days  after  the  birth  of  a  boy,  and  for  eighty  after  the  birth  of 
a  girl,  and  then  to  purify  herself  by  an  offering.  The  period  was 
much  too  long  for  sanatory  purposes — the  ordinance  had  a  re- 
ligious and  moral  import.  It  kept  alive  a  consciousness  of  sin, 
which,  from  the  first,  displayed  itself  so  prominently  in  the  sexual 
relations  (Gen.  iii.  10,  16),  and  directed  her  view,  through  the  offer- 
ing that  followed,  to  the  coming  deliverance  from  all  impurity. 

(The  reading  avrov  is  remarkable  ;  for  although  it  is  certain  that 
avrrjg  is  'an  alteration,  which  arose  from  narrow  doctrinal  views, 
since  icadaoia^og  did  not  seem  to  be  required  for  the  trwr^p ;  yet 
we  cannot  imagine  that  any  one  would  have  altered  the  text  to 
avrov.  With  the  exception  of  Cod.  D.,  it  has  only  some  Codd.  of 
inferior  authority  in  its  favour ;  still  it  is  a  question,  whether  the 
reading  avrov  is  not  preferable  to  the  common  one  aurwv.) 

Yer.  23. — According  to  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament  (Exod. 
xiii.  2),  every  first-born  ("I'isa  =  tani  its  —  diavolyov  jw^rpav),  if  a 
male,  was  holy  to  the  Lord  (^"ij  ay<oc,  sacer,  signifies  primarily  only 
what  is  separated  from  that  which  is  profane,  and  destined  for  sacred 
use.)  But  as  according  to  Numb.  iii.  12,  13,  the  Lord  had  taken 
the  tribe  of  Levi  for  himself,  instead  of  all  the  first-born,  the  first- 
born sons  had  indeed  to  be  presented  before  the  Lord  (napaorTjoat  = 
a<H£n)j  as  a  symbolical  act  of  consecration,  of  surrendering  for  his 
service  ;  but  they  could  be  redeemed  for  five  shekels.  (Num.  xviii. 
15,  16.)  Jesus  was  thus  redeemed,  according  to  the  forms  of  the 
law,  from  service  in  the  earthly  tabernacle,  that  he  might  build  a 
greater,  a  more  perfect  tabernacle.  (Heb.  ix.  11.) 

Ver.  24. — The  offering  had  immediate  reference  to  the  woman 
(Lev.  xii.  8),  with  whom,  however,  the  child  was  regarded  as  one. 

VOL.  I.— 16 


242  LUKE  II.  24-27. 

The  circumstance  that  Mary  offered  doves,  is  a  proof  that  she  was 
poor — the  rich  presented  a  lamb.  Nevertheless,  she  may  have  pos- 
sessed some  small  plots  of  ground  at  Bethlehem  and  Nazareth  ;  for 
the  regulation  of  bringing  a  lamb  of  the  first  year,  as  an  offering,  for 
purification,  applied  only  to  the  rich,  strictly  so  called.  (Lev.  xii.  6.) 

Ver.  25. — The  sojourn  at  Jerusalem  gave  occasion  for  a  fresh 
confirmation  of  Mary's  faith,  from  the  circumstance,  that  a  certain 
man,  Simeon  by  name,  uttered  words  prophetic  of  the  child's  im- 
portance. Simeon's  personal  history  is  not  known  ;  for  the  conjec- 
ture that  he  was  father  to  Gamaliel  (Acts  v.  34),  and  son  of  Hillel, 
is  extremely  improbable.  The  indefinite  expression  dvdpu-nog  rig,  a 
certain  man,  indicates  rather  that  he  belonged  to  the  lower  ranks, 
in  which  the  deeper  religious  life  appears  to  have  concentrated  itself 
at  the  time  of  Christ.  Simeon,  like  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth  (i.  6), 
is  called  dinaiog,  righteous,  which  denotes  the  external  legal  aspect 
of  his  life  ;  while  evXaftrjg,  pious,  akin  to  oaiog  (i.  75),  denotes  rather 
the  internal  aspect,  the  disposition  towards  God ;  but,  of  course, 
in  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  form  of  piety,  since  piety  is 
equivalent  to  fear  of  God.  His  religious  life  is  characterized  most 
definitely  by  the  words  :  -npogde^ofjievog  TrapaKhrjaiv  rov  'lapaTjk*  wait- 
ing for  the  consolation  of  Israel,  which  are  akin  to  the  following 
phrase  :  7rpogde^6p,evog  kvrpuaiv,  awaiting  redemption  (verse  38). 
The  latter  expression  regards  the  deliverance  from  sin  and  misery 
in  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah  ;  while  the  former  specifies  the 
consolation  afforded  by  it.  Both  are  included  in  the  phase,  Trpog- 
dK^eadai  rrjv  fiaoiXdav  rov  Qeov,  waiting  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

(With  respect  to  napaK^rjaig,  it  is  only  in  this  passage  that  it  is 
used  for  the  concrete  napdn^rog.  HapdnXrjrog  .=  thJtt,  in  Rabbinical 
writers,  though  ta^^s  or  NU^^S  is  also  found  in  them,  occurs  fre- 
quently, but  in  the  New  Testament  principally  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
[John  xiv.  16,  26  ;  xv.  26  ;  xvi.  7];  yet  of  Christ  also  in  1  John  ii. 
1,  although  in  a  modified  sense.  The  term  as  here  used  of  the 
Messiah,  has  a  reference  to  the  suffering  state  of  the  people,  which 
is  conceived  to  be  removed  by  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah.)  This 
pious  man  also,  at  that  richly  blessed  season,  when  what  earth  ever 
witnessed  of  noblest  was  in  silent  preparation,  had  received  the 
Holy  Spirit  (see  note  on  Luke  i.  15),  and,  in  his  power,  prophesied 
of  the  Saviour.  (The  phrase  f^v  irf  avrov  [see  ver.  40]  is  to  be  ex- 
plained by  supplying  £p%eadai,  which  is  involved  in  r(v.  "  The  Spirit 
came  upon  him,  and  consequently  wrought  in  him.") 

Ver.  26,  27. — Simeon,  waiting  for  the  consolation  of  Israel,  had 
been  assured  by  the  Spirit,  that  he  should  not  die  before  being  hon- 
oured with  a  view  of  the  Messiah.  (On  xpr]iJ,ari&GOai,  see  note  on 
Matth.  ii.  12.  As  to  the  form  of  this  %pr]p,ariaiwg,  whether  it  came 
*  The  expression  eATrZf  rov  'Icrpa^/l,  in  Acts  xxviii.  20,  is  very  similar. 


LUKE  II.  27-32.  243 

to  liim  when  awake,  or  in  a  dream,  the  narrative  is  silent.  Instead 
of  IStiv  Gdvarov,  yevaaodai  davdrov  [Matth.  xvi.  28]  is  also  used  else- 
where, since  perception  by  the  senses  is  put  for  actual  experience  of 
every  land.)  The  same  Spirit  who  had  given  the  promise,  conducts 
him  also  at  the  proper  moment  to  its  fulfilment.  Such  a  guidance 
by  the  Spirit,  which  stands  in  contrast  with  choice  from  reflection, 
is  seen  in  the  life  of  all  Scripture  saints,  from  Abraham  to  Paul. 
It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  true  children  of  God,  who  possess  inno- 
cence in  the  noblest  sense  of  the  word,  that  they  know  the  voice  of 
truth  (John  x.  4),  and  are  enabled  to  follow  jt  without  falling  into 
error,  though  they  do  not  on  that  account  neglect  the  use  of  natural 
means,  such  as  reflection  and  attention  to  circumstances.  (See  e.  g. 
Acts  xvi.  6.) 

Ver.  28,  29. — By  the  power  of  the  same  Spirit,  Simeon,  with 
indubitable  certainty,  recognized  the  promised  Saviour  in  the  child, 
without  needing  any  information  from  Mary  of  what  she  had  ex- 
perienced. With  fervour  the  old  man  immediately  pours  out  his 
grateful  heart  to  God,  who  had  fulfilled  his  promise  to  him.  (The 
words  Kara  rb  pfjpd  oov  scil.  Trpb^  IJJ.K  ep%6fievov,  refer  to  ver.  26.) 
This  sight  of  the  desired  One  he  regards  likewise  as  the  end  of  his 
earthly  existence,  and,  with  a  swan-like  song  concerning  his  glory, 
he  takes  leave  of  life  below.  (In  drrokveiv  iv  elpTJvy,  dismiss  in  peace, 
there  is  an  allusion  to  the  service  and  the  spiritual  office  of  Simeon  ; 
he  was  a  prophet  in  his  day,  and  doubtless  maintained  a  lively  and 
vigorous  hope  in  the  circle  of  those  who  looked  for  redemption. 
[Ver.  38.]  In  dprjvr),  peace,  there  is  not  merely  a  reference  to  the 
fulfilment  of  the  hope  which  inspired  Simeon,  of  yet  beholding  the 
Saviour  ;  the  term  denotes,  with  a  profounder  meaning,  the  peace- 
ful consciousness  in  general,  that  the  people  of  Israel,  and  himself 
with  them,  had  attained  its  everlasting  goal  in  the  now  manifested 
Messiah.  Aeo-rroTw,  Lord,  is  used  several  times  of  God  [Acts  iv. 
24  ;  Jude,  verse  4  ;  Rev.  vi.  10] ;  once  only  of  Christ.  [2  Pet.  ii.  1.] 
The  term  dhTers  from  Kvpio$  in  this,  that  it  denotes  more  precisely 
the  relation  of  a  ruler  with  unlimited  power  ;  while  Kvpio$  suggests 
the  milder  idea  of  possession  of  property.) 

Ver.  30,  31,  32. — Simeon,  in  prophetic  rapture,  follows  up  this 
thanksgiving  with  a  description  of  the  influence  of  the  Messiah', 
whom  he  had  seen  bodily.  (The  expression  ol  dfidatyoi  juov,  my  eyes, 
refers  to  bodily  sight,  for  with  the  eye  of  the  Spirit  he  had  long 
beheld  the  coming  of  the  Saviour  ;  he  longed  for  his  appearance  in 
the  flesh,  John  i.  14.)  Although,  therefore,  above  (ver.  25), 
Simeon's  hopes  of  the  Messiah  were  conceived  with  a  national 
reference,  in  that  the  Saviour  was  called  "  the  consolation  of  Israel," 
yet  here  there  appears  most  distinctly  a  consciousness  that  this 
desired  One  would,  by  God's  appointment,  exercise  an  influence 


244  LUKE  II.  32. 

over  the  whole  human  race.  In  the  light  of  this  plain  assertion, 
therefore,  we  may  judge  of  the  former  passages  in  which  such  ex- 
pectations were  set  forth.  Their  seeming  limitation  to  Israel,  and 
their  reference  to  earthly  relations,  form  but  the  one  aspect  of  the 
idea  of  the  Messiah,  which  we  must  complete  by  the  other,  even 
where  it  is  not  expressly  mentioned.  The  Messiah's  most  immediate 
relation  is  certainly  to  Israel,  but  thence  the  vivifying  influence  of 
his  Spirit  extends  to  all  nations  ;  and  though  his  agency  com- 
mences in  the  depth  of  the  soul,  yet  it  thence  influences  ex- 
ternal relations  also  ;  so  that,  in  the  most  proper  sense,  the  human 
race,  as  such,  in  all  its  members,  and  in  all  its  external  and  internal 
relations,  is  the  subject  on  which  the  Messiah  exercises  his  saving 
and  sanctifying  power.  As  this  relation  of  the  Messiah's  work 
to  the  entire  human  race,  even  to  the  most  distant  nations,  is  just 
the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  also  (see  Gen.  xii.  3  ;  xviii.  18  ; 
xxviii.  14  ;  xlix.  10  ;  Psalm  Ixxxvii.;  Isa.  xi.,  xix.,  xlii.,  and  other 
passages),  we  are  the  more  obliged  to  presuppose  this  correct  view 
in  the  pious  at  the  time  of  Christ,  in  that  they  appear  as  living  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Old  Testament.  That  its  connexion  with  their  own 
nation,  however,  and  their  deliverance  from  bondage  to  the  heathen, 
should  occupy  the  foreground  with  them,  is  perfectly  accounted  for  by 
their  circumstances.  The  same  form  of  representing  the  subject  is 
sanctioned  by  the  Old  Testament,  which  never  permits  the  Mes- 
siah's relation  to  the  nation  to  degenerate  into  bigoted  exclusive- 
ness,  nor  its  hopes  of  external  good  to  be  without  a  moral  and 
religious  foundation.  But  the  contrary  was  the  case  with  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  gross  and  sensual  multitude,  who  rejoiced  in  exclud- 
ing all  heathen,  as  such,  from  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah,  and  who, 
with  their  carnal  dispositions,  and  without  true  change  of  heart, 
hoped  to  be  allowed  at  once  to  follow  the  Messianic  King,  as  their 
general,  to  a  war  of  extermination  against  the  heathen.  That  such 
gross  conceptions  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  noble  views 
which  were  preserved  in  tlie  circles  of  the  pious  at  that  time,  is 
shewn  by  ver.  38,  where  those  who  waited  for  redemption  are 
spoken  of  as  a  special  class.  But  the  expectations  of  a  Messiah 
were,  as  already  intimated,  a  common  property  of  the  nation  at  the 
time  of  Christ ;  if,  therefore,  those  which  were  current  among  the 
multitude  were  acknowledged  as  the  true  ones,  then  the  waiting  for 
redemption  could  not  have  been  used  as  characteristic  of  a  certain 
class  of  men.  (In  verse  30,  as  in  i.  71,  the  abstract  is  put  for  the 
concrete  person,  ac^r^piov  =  ourrjpta  for  cram/p.  It  is  called  "  God's 
salvation,"  both  because  it  springs  from  God,  and  because  it  is 
agreeable  to  his  nature  ;  and  these  two  coincide,  since  only  what  is 
godlike  comes  from  God.  'Erot^d^eiv  =  irpoopi&iv  [Horn.  viii.  29, 
30]  marks  the  relation  towards  the  heathen,  as  founded  on  God's 


LUKE  II.  32-34.  245 

gracious  purpose,  which.  Simeon  correctly  perceived  in  the  prophe- 
cies of  the  Old  Testament.  In  Kara  TTpoou-rrov  =  KVUTTIOV  =  iseV,  in  the 
face  of,  before,  there  is  implied  not  only  being  known  externally, 
but  having  also  an  inward  efficacy,  since  everything  beheld  exter- 
nally produces  kindred  internal  effects.  The  expression  reminds  us 
of  Isa.  xi.  10,  where  the  Messiah  is  called  D-W  &iV  -i»j>,  since  he 
stands  before  the  people  as  a  sign  of  gathering  —  as  forming  a 
spiritual  centre.  In  like  manner,  in  ver.  32,  </>o>f  e/.f  d?roKa/U>i/>n> 
idv&v,  a  light  to  enlighten  the  Gentiles,  refers  to  passages,  such  as 
Isa.  xlii.  6  ;  [John  i.  4;]  Isa.  xxv.  7.  The  being  covered  [ta'in—  \is, 
Isa.  xxv.  7]  is  opposed  to  d-nondXv^.  But  the  blessing  of  the  hea- 
then is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  "  glory"  of  Israel.  Aad^  and  Zdvos  ,  are 
here  interchanged,  as  Israel  is  also  called  £dvo$  ,  John  xi.  48,  ff.  It 
is  only  when  used  in  the  plural  that  tQvr\  —  tj^a  has  the  meaning 
"  heathen.") 

Ver.  33,  34.  —  The  parents  of  Jesus  did  not  wonder,  probably, 
so  much  at  the  thoughts  uttered  concerning  their  son's  mission 
and  influence,  as  that  the  Spirit  uniformly  testified  from  the  most 
various  quarters  to  his  high  spiritual  dignity  and  importance.  (The 
reading  'luaity  for  7rar?/p  is  evidently  the  offspring  of  doctrinal 
scrupulousness.  Copyists  feared  that  the  term  might  be  misunder- 
stood.) Simeon's  being  here  represented  to  us  as  blessing  the 
Saviour,  must  be  explained  on  the  principle  stated  at  Luke  ii. 
21  and  Matth.  iii.  15.  On  the  principle,  "the  less  is  blessed 
of  the  greater"  (Heb.  vii.  7),  Simeon  here  appears  exalted  ahove 
the  Saviour,  just  as  do  John  who  baptizes  him  (Luke  ii.  46), 
and  the  Rabbins  whom  Jesus  questions.  In  his  human  develop- 
ment, the  Saviour  takes  his  place  among  men  according  to  the 
ordinary  stages  of  human  development  ;  as  a  child,  therefore,  he  is 
really  a  child,  and  consequently  in  subordination  (verse  51)  to  those 
in  the  more  advanced  stages  of  life.  Yet  in  every  period  of  his  life, 
and  in  each  stage  of  his  gradual  development,  he  unfolded  himself 
sinlessly,  and  thus  exhibited  in  each  separate  stage  its  own  pure  ideal 
of  excellence.  In  the  succeeding  context,  Simeon  specifies  more 
particularly  Christ's  work,  which  is  viewed  as  discriminating  and 
separating  according  to  the  qualities  of  men,  and  as  causing  ruin 
as  well  as  blessing.  A  slight  intimation  of  the  path  of  sorrow  by 
which  the  end  must  be  attained,  is  then  appended.  (Luke  xxiv. 
26.)  The  figure  employed,  to  which  the  expression  refers,  is  that 
of  a  stone  (Isa.  xxviii.  16  ;  Dan.  ii.  34  ;  Zech.  iii.  9  ;  Matth.  xxi. 
42)  ;  which  becomes  a  npoaKo^a,  stone  of  stumbling  (1  Pet.  ii.  7,  8) 
to  the  proud,  who  stumble  at  it,  but,  to  the  humble,  a  means  of 
elevation  from  their  low  condition.  'Avdaraoig  is  here  simply  -the 
opposite  of  TTTwOTf.)  In  these  opposite  departments  of  his  work,  the 


Saviour  manifests  himself  according  to  divine  intention  and  ar- 


246  LUKE  II.  34,  35. 

rangeraent.  (KeloOai,  to  be  set,  is  by  no  means  absolutely  synonymous 
with  elvai,  to  be;  the  term  combined  with  el?,  involves  a  reference 
to  an  intention — a  purpose,  Phil.  i.  17.)  And  it  is  not  merely  at 
his  first  appearance,  but  also  as  his  work  extends  through  the  whole 
of  the  world's  history,  that  the  Saviour  manifests  himself  at  all 
times  and  places,  quite  as  much  in  the  way  of  punitive  justice,  as 
in  that  of  redeeming  efficacy  ;  the  two  are  the  mutually  supple- 
mentary parts  of  our  Lord's  work.  (The  remark  that  not  all,  but 
many  individuals  among  the  people,  were  affected  by  it,  may  be 
thus  explained,  that,  so  far  as  Christ's  intention  is  concerned,  all 
should  be  saved  ;  but  unbelief  prevents  this  result ;  to  many  he  is 
salvation,  to  many  ruin.)  In  the  concluding  words,  not  el$  GT^KLOV 
dvTiheyonevov,  and  for  a  sign  spoken  against,  there  is  an  intimation 
of  Christ's  passion.  Those  who  stumble  at  him  are  also  those  who 
speak  against  him  (avrf/UyovTe?.)  ('Aim/leyeiv  is  taken  as  a  general 
expression  of  hostile  disposition,  which  involves  the  act  also.)  But 
even  in  this  dvrikoyia  the  Saviour  appears  as  a  sign,  set  before  the 
world  by  the  Father,  and,  that  as  much  before  the  unbelieving  as 
the  believing  world,  though  indeed  in  different  relations.  The  ex- 
pression is  to  be  taken  in  the  same  way  as  Isa.  viii.  18.  God  speaks  to 
the  world  by  the  Saviour  and  his  entire  complex  manifestation — by  the 
Man  with  the  cross  and  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  the  eternal  Son  of 
God,  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead — in  the  mighty  language 
of  fact,  and  sets  him  up,  in  truth,  as  a  miraculous  sign  for  mankind, 
as  Isaiah  and  his  sons,  with  their  symbolical  names,  were  in  their 
time.  (See  note  on  Matth.  i.  23.) 

Ver.  35. — At  the  mention  of  the  opposition  of  the  world  to  the 
Anointed,  the  far-seeing  prophet  gives  a  glance  at  the  development 
of  the  blessed  mother's  life.  She  who  gave  birth  to  the  Son  of  God 
was  still,  as  such,  not  born  of  God.  She  was,  as  all  mankind  are  by 
nj?.'ure,  -yewrp-^  yvvaiicog,  born  of  a  woman  (see  note  on  Matth.  xi.  11), 
and  therefore,  like  them,  needed  regeneration,  which  cannot  be  ef- 
fected without  affliction,  Eev.  vii.  14.  But  the  words  :  T?JV  i>v%rjv 
tiiehevoerai potato,,  a  sivord  shall  pierce  thy  soul,  cannot  contain  the 
mere  idea  of  suffering,  without  including  that  of  consolation  ;  this 
would  cast  a  shade  over  the  joyful  tone  of  the  whole  prophecy.  The 
idea  of  the  deepest,  most  exquisite  agony  of  soul,  rather  includes 
here  the  idea  of  salvation  and  perfecting  through  it,  just  as  the 
dvTtktycoOai.  (ver.  34)  comprises  the  victory  over  every  dvn^oyia. 
Mary's  distress,  which  was  one  with  her  Son's,  appears  at  once  kill- 
ing and  quickening.  At  the  sight  of  him  she  must  endure  not  only 
the  struggle  of  a  mother's  love,  but  that  of  faith  also,  which  ap- 
peared to  die  in  her  along  with  him,  who  had  been  bestowed  from 
above. — The  revealing  of  the  secret  depths  of  the  hearts — of  the 
good  as  well  as  the  bad — is  declared  to  be  the  end  of  this  discrimin- 


I 


LUKE  II.  35-38.  247 

ating,  judicial  work.  Christ  appears  here  as  Judge  of  the  world, 
even  during  the  progress  of  the  human  race  ;  wherever  he  appears, 
his  pervading  agency  compels  to  a  decision  for  or  against.  (The 
diaXoytanoi,  thoughts,  are  here  again,  as  was  ohserved  in  note  on  Luke  i. 
51,  connected  with  the  heart  (itapdia).  So  also  the  less  usual  terms, 
imvoia  [Acts  viii.  22],  vnovota  [1  Tim.  vi.  4],  vorj^a  [Baruch  ii.  8.]  All 
these  expressions,  as  indeed  the  etymology  intimates,  denote  actionsof 
the  vovg  or  A.oyof,  and  correspond  to  the  word  "  thoughts."  Heart  can- 
not therefore  denote  that  power  to  which  they  belong.  But  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  according  to  a  view  which  is  psychologically  quite 
correct,  never  conceive  of  the  active  exercise  of  the  thinking  faculty 
apart  from  the  inclinations,  and  the  bent  of  a  man's  whole  life  ;  they 
refer  every  rising  thought  to  the  latent  inclination  of  the  heart.*  As 
the  central  point  of  personal  life,  the  Bible  regards  the  heart  =  A 
[see  Prov.  iv.  23  ;  e^ri  fiiswrn  ;&»«  -o.]  Hence  KK  napdi&v,  out  of  the 
heart,  points  out  quite  correctly  the  impulse  given  to  the 
thoughts,  from  the  heart,  though  they  themselves  belong  to  the 
mind. 

Ver.  36,  37. — One  other  individual  is  mentioned  to  us  by  namef 
out  of  the  pious  circle  at  Jerusalem — probably  a  very  narrow  one — 
Anna,  who  also  had  received  the  Spirit  (Ilpoffnjrig  =  Tn>Kv\ia  a-yiov 
K%ovaa,  ver.  25.)  It  is  remarked,  as  the  distinction  of  this  woman, 
otherwise  unknown  to  us,  that,  although  eighty-four  years  of  age, 
she  had  been  united  with  a  husband  only  seven  years,  and  spent  her 
whole  remaining  life  in  widowhood.  It  is  the  tender  fidelity  with 
which  she  treasured  the  memory  of  her  husband,  that  is  here  brought 
into  notice.  Her  piety  is  conformed  to  the  Old  Testament  model. 
Her  religious  life  assumed  an  ascetic  and  Nazarite  form.  (See  i.  15.) 

Ver.  38. — She  repaired  to  the  temple  at  the  same  time,  perhaps 
at  the  hour  of  prayer  (tyiardvai,  to  appear  suddenly,  see  Luke  ii.  9), 
and  joined  in  the  praise  of  God,  when  she  received  the  intelligence 
that  all  her  hopes  were  fulfilled  in  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah. 
(The  term  dvdonohoyeiadai  means,  in  classic  Greek,  "  to  strike  a  bar- 
gain," "  to  agree,"  "  to  make  mutual  concessions."  In  the  Hellen- 
istic language  it  is  used  for  rnin,  to  praise,  Psalm  Ixxix.  13.  'E£o- 
HokoysioOai  is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  Gen.  xxix.  35,  and  the  simple 
verb,  in  Job  xl.  9.  It  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.) 
The  aged  woman  imparts  the  joy  of  her  heart  to  the  like-minded 

*  Old  Michael  Montaigne  has  a  very  beautiful  remark  in  the  Slimme  der  Wahrheit, 
Th.  i.,  S.  4 :  "  In  man,"  he  says,  "  we  may  overlook  the  head,  though  it  is  always  good 
not  to  do  SQ,  if  it  be  in  the  right  place,  and  gives  birth  to  nothing  wrong ;  but  the  heart 
is  still  the  main  thing.  We  need  the  head  for  life  only,  but  the  heart  for  death  also." 

\  Even  Schleiermacher  has  observed,  that  this  mention  of  a  second  individual,  who 
reiteiatcs  Simeon's  testimony,  is  against  the  mythical  character  of  the  narrative.  One 
event  of  that  sort  would  have  satisfied  the  tendency  in  the  church  to  the  formation  of 
myths. 


248  ,          LUKE  II.  38-40. 

members  composing  the  circle  of  the  Messiah's  friends  in  Jerusalem. 
(On  TtpoadexeaOat  Mrpumv,  see  Luke  i.  68  ;  ii.  25. — Avrpumg  is  here 
put  for  Avrpwrffc . — Hepi.  avrov  refers  to  the  object  of  praise,  not,  in- 
deed, expressly  mentioned — viz.,  the  Messiah  who  was  come. 

Ver.  39,  40. — After  the  completion  of  the  ceremony  of  purifica- 
tion (ver.  22),  the  mother  and  child  returned  to  Nazareth.  The 
mention  of  the  final  limit  of  the  journey,  from  its  being  Mary's  actual 
place  of  constant  abode,  does  not  directly  exclude  other  journeys, 
(See  the  subsequent  narrative  of  Jesus'  childhood.)  At  this  point 
the  memoirs  evidently  become  more  general,,  and  vTrsarpe^jav  el$  rr{v 
.  Takihaiav,  they  returned  into  Galilee,  is  not  so  much  a  new  fact  in- 
tended to  be  recorded  by  the  narrator,  as  a  form  of  conclusion.  The 
more  particular  and  accurate  accounts  were  wanting  here,  and  there- 
fore he  brings  back  the  mother  and  the  child  to  the  place  where  he 
knew  they  constantly  resided  (Ilokig  avr&v,  see  Luke  i.  56.) — The 
last  verse,  just  as  was  related  of  John  (i.  80),  notices  that  purely 
human  development  of  our  Lord,  corporeal  and  spiritual,  to  which 
even  his  life  in  its  human  aspect  was  subject.)  The  only  peculiar 
fe?  ture  is  that  which  is  added  hi  the  words  -rrtypovfievov  oofyias,  filled 
with  wisdom.  But  that  the  idea  of  wisdom  is  to  be  taken  relatively, 
is  shewn  partly  by  ii.  52,  which  describes  the  wisdom  of  Jesus  him- 
self as  still  unfolding  itself ;  and  partly  by  the  idea  of  childhood,  to 
which  the  character  of  wisdom  always  belongs  only  relatively.  But 
this  is  precisely  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  in  his  human  development, 
that  he  presents  each  stage  of  life  pure  and  unsullied  by  sin  ; 
yet  so  as  never  to  obliterate  the  character  of  the  stage  itself; 
which  would  be  the  case  on  the  supposition  that  the  child  Jesus 
possessed  perfect  wisdom.*  Xoptf  ffi>  £rf  av-6,  grace  was  upon 
him  (see  ii.  25),  not  merely  expresses  God's  being  well  pleased  in 
Jesus,  but  intimates  also  the  effective  cause  of  the  pure  unspotted 
development  of  the  Saviour's  life.  Grace  is  nothing  but  love  reveal- 
ing itself — shewing  itself  actively  ;  and  in  every  moment  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  the  love  of  God  shone  forth  in  active  exercise  in  him.  He 
was  completely  a  child — completely  a  youth — completely  a  man ; 
and  thus  hallowed  all  the  stages  of  human  development ;  but  noth- 
ing incongruous  ever  appeared  in  him,  which  would  have  been  the 
case  if  utterances  of  a  riper  age  had  escaped  him  in  childhood. 

Here,  at  the  close  of  the  history  of  Jesus'  infancy,  we  must  glance 
at  the  relation  of  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  of  which  it 
is  maintained,  that  they  do  not  supplement,  but  contradict  each 

*  ScMeiermacher  observes  very  justly  in  the  Glaubenslehre,  Th.  ii.,  S.  178 — "If  we 
choose  to  deny  the  gradual  development  of  the  Saviour,  we  must  either  suppose,  that  his 
whole  childhood  was  a  mere  semblance,  and  that  in  his  first  year,  for  instance,  he  had 
entire  command  of  language ;  or  we  must  return  to  the  solution  of  Cerinthus.  and  sepa- 
rate that  in  which  Christ  was  similar  to  all  men  from  that  which  was  archetypal  in  him." 


LUKE  II.  40.  249 

other  ;  that  they  are  the  offspring  of  totally  different  traditions,  and 
are,  as  it  were,  lines  running  parallel  with  each  other.  According  to , 
Luke,  the  parents  of  Jesus  live  at  Nazareth,  and  his  birth  at  Beth- 
lehem seems  the  result  of  accidental  circumstances  ;  in  Matthew,  on 
the  contrary,  they  would  seem  themselves  to  have  lived  at  Bethle- 
hem. Further,  Luke's  narrative  of  the  annunciation  appears  irre- 
concileable  with  Joseph's  being  ignorant  at  first  of  the  nature  of 
Mary's  pregnancy,  and  his  being  informed  by  the  angel,  as  Matthew 
says ;  and  again,  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  Herod's  slaughter  of  the 
children,  and  the  flight  into  Egypt,  as  recorded  by  Matthew,  appear 
irreconcileable  with  Luke's  account  of  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  for 
the  purification.  On  closer  consideration,  however,  the  first  objec- 
tion, that  Matthew  appears  to  follow  a  different  tradition  as  to  the 
residence  of  Jesus'  parents,  resolves  itself  into  something  purely  ne- 
gative. For  Matthew  evidently  follows  no  tradition  whatever  con- 
cerning the  residence  of  Jesus'  parents,  and  gives  no  remarks  at  all 
as  to  time  and  place  ;  he  merely  recounts  the  facts.  The  circum- 
stance of  his  naming  Bethlehem  (ii.  1)  as  the  birthplace  of  Jesus, 
happens,  as  the  following  verses  shew,  only  in  consequence  of  that 
place  being  so  assigned  in  a  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament.  Other- 
wise, Matthew  would  hardly  have  named  the  place  of  birth  at  all. 
Just  so  he  would  have  been  content  with  the  general  statement,  d$ 
TO,  pepr]  rijg  Takikaiag,  into  the  district  of  Galilee  (ii.  22),  had  not  a  re- 
ference to  the  prophecies  induced  him  (ii.  23)  further  to  mention 
Nazareth.  Besides,  the  passage  Matth.  ii.  22,  23,  does  not  oblige 
us,  as  Sieffert  asserts,  to  suppose  that  Matthew  was  ignorant  of 
Mary's  having  been  at  Nazareth  before  the  birth  of  Jesus  ;  •  we  have 
only  to  suppose  that,  during  the  .stay  in  Egypt,  it  had  appeared  de- 
sirable to  Joseph  to  establish  himself  at  Bethlehem,  but  from  fear  of 
Archelaus,  he  gave  up  the  plan,  and  returned  to  Nazareth.  Accord- 
ingly, we  can  only  say  of  Matthew,  that  he  passes  over  the  particulars 
of  place,  and  notices  incidentally  one  or  two  points,  which  must  be 
more  precisely  fixed  by  a  reference  to  Luke,  the  more  exact  narrator. 
Next,  as  regards  the  supposed  contradictions  in  the  details  of  the 
two  narratives,  no  such  thing  as  an  impossibility  of  reconciling  them 
can  be  talked  of,  if  only  in  Luke  ii.  39  the  words  v-rrearpetyav  d$  TTJV 
Takikaiav,  they  returned  into  Galilee,  be  understood  with  proper  lati- 
tude. To  regard  this  expression  in  its  immediate  connexion  with 
ver.  40,  as  a  form  of  conclusion,  and,  consequently,  as  intended  only 
to  point  out  the  habitual  abode  of  Jesus,  where  the  development 
described  in  ver.  40  proceeded,  is  at  least  an  available  mode  of  es- 
cape, which  no  one,  who  feels  himself  called  upon  to  avoid  the  quick- 
sands of  myths,  will  hesitate  to  adopt.  There  remains  then,  in  fact, 
nothing  in  the  two  narratives  necessarily  contradictory  ;  for  no  one 
will  seriously  urge  the  objection,  which  Schleiermacher  brings  against 


250  LUKE  II.  40,  41. 

the  supposition  of  a  return  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethlehem,  after  the 
purification  was  accomplished — viz.,  that  the  return  is  improbable, 
because  the  mother  would  have  found  herself  there  in  inconvenient 
circumstances  ;  for  these  circumstances  were  evidently  produced 
by  the  enrolment,  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  increased  for 
only  a  few  days  the  population  of  the  town.  The  relation  of  the  ac- 
counts in  the  two  Gospels  is  therefore  such,  that  both  may  be  very 
well  reduced  to  a  connected  whole  by  supplying  the  little  circum- 
stances that  are  passed  over  in  silence.  And  what  historical  narra- 
tion, composed  by  different  historians,  who  give  their  accounts  inde- 
pendently of  each  other,  and  who  follow  different  points  of  view  in 
them,  does  not  stand  in  need  of  such  supplementing  ? 

It  must  be  confessed,  that  the  reconciliation  of  the  two  Gospels  in 
reference  to  Joseph  is  more  difficult.  Yet  the  difficulty  lies  not  so 
much  in  the  reconciliation  of  their  accounts,  as  in  the  obscurity  of 
the  recorded  event,  which  can  be  cleared  away  only  by  a  comparison 
of  both.  For  it  is  left  uncertain  from  Matth.  i.  18,  19,  how  and 
when  Joseph  became  aware  of  Mary's  being  with  child.  Evpt^,  she 
was  found,  however,  appears  to  indicate,  that  Mary  did  not  tell 
Joseph  any  thing  of  it ;  and  what  we  read  in  Luke  i.  36,  39,  56,  in- 
creases this  probability  to  almost  a  certainty  ;  for,  according  to 
these  passages,  Mary  went  to  Elisabeth  when  the  latter  was  six 
months  advanced  in  pregnancy,  stayed  there  the  next  three  months, 
and  returned  shortly  before  Elisabeth  was  delivered.  Such  a  visit 
of  three  months,  supposes  that  Mary  was  already  married  ;*  Mary's 
pregnancy  was  thus  already  discovered  before  the  journey,  viz.,  by 
the  pronubis,  the  n'in'fcw,  who  conceived  suspicion  and  imparted  their 
distrust  to  Joseph.  Then  followed  the  divine  disclosure  (Matth.  i. 
20,  if.)  ;  Joseph  immediately  took  Mary  as  his  wife,  and  she  went 
to  Elisabeth.  Mary,  therefore,  never  came  into  the  position  of  her- 
self making  the  disclosure  to  Joseph.  This  pain  was  spared  her  by 
the  divine  arrangements.  How  could  it  have  been  otherwise  ?  J'he 
events  that  had  happened  to  her  were  of  so  extraordinary  a  kind,  that 
she  could  not  communicate  them  without  having  any  other  voucher 
than  her  word.  The  same  childlike  faith  with  which  she  said  : 
"  Behold  the  handmaid  of  the  Lord  ;  be  it  unto  me  according  to 

'  O 

thy  word,"  could  not  but  inspire  her  with  the  confidence,  that  divine 
compassion  would  find  ways  and  means  to  satisfy  her  intended  hus- 
band that  she  was  the  pure  bride  of  heaven. 

*  Virgins  and  brides  were  not  allowed  to  journey.  (Philo  de  leg.,  sec.  II.,  p.  650  • 
Misch.  Ketuboth,  op.  1,  sec.  6.,  Hug.  Gutachten  gegen  Strauss  S.  85.) — [E. 


LUKE  II.  41. 

§   6.   JESUS   CONVEKSES  WITH   THE   PRIESTS  IN   THE   TEMPLE. 
(Luke  ii.  41-52.) 

The  import  of  this  apparently  insignificant  occurrence — the  only 
one  told  us  of  the  life  of  Jesus  up  to  the  time  of  his  public  appear- 
ance— demands  a  few  preliminary  remarks.0  Viewed  in  its  con- 
nexion with  his  entire  manifestation,  it  presents  to  us  unquestion- 
ably the  sacred  moment,  when  the  higher  divine  consciousness  arose 
within  him.  As  was  partially  noticed  before,  the  Saviour,  in  his 
human  manifestation,  followed  the  general  course  of  human  devel- 
opment ;  and  though  the  child's  consciousness  in  him  was  a  pure, 
holy,  and  glorified  one,  yet  it  was  a  child's,  and,  consequently,  not 
a  divine  one.f  This  latter  gradually  formed  itself  in  the  progress  of 
his  general  development  (Luke  i.  80  ;  ii.  40,  52),  and  on  occasion  of 
his  being  present  for  the  first  time  in  the  holy  city,  to  which  the 
child's  desire  had  probably  long  aspired,  the  thought  then  first  pre- 
sented itself  distinctly  to  him,  as  glowing  embers  burst  into  a  flame, 
that  lie  was  God's  Son,  and  God  his  Father.  The  divine  nature  of 
Jesus,  appears,  therefore,  a  distinct  thing  from  the  knowledge  of 
that  nature.  To  the  latter  he  attained  gradually,  as  the  result  of 
the  progress  of  his  human  development.  The  springing  up  of  that 
consciousness  bore  him  at  that  instant  to  his  real  home,  of  which  the 
temple  appeared  to  him  the  type,  and,  in  spiritual  rapture,  he  might 
forget  the  earthly  representatives  of  his  heavenly  Father.  But  this 
forgetting  was  not  in  him  an  act  of  disobedience,  but,  in  fact,  of 
superior  obedience.  He  followed  faithfully  the  stronger  attraction 
from  above,  and  therefore  he  reunited  himself  to  his  parents  with 
childlike  submission,  when  they  reminded  him  of  the  rights  of  pa- 
rents, while  they  had  forgotten  the  parental  duties.^  The  mother  had 
done  wrong  in  having  neglected  her  highest  duty  to  God — the  care 
of  the  divine  child — a  deep  symbol  of  the  relation  of  the  human  and 
the  divine  agencies  in  the  work  of  regeneration,  in  which,  after  a 
similar  manner,  the  new  man,  in  his  birth,  is  entrusted  to  his  soul, 

*  That  Strauss  reckons  even  this  occurrence  among  the  mythical  portions,  proves  un- 
deniably tho  exaggerated,  wanton  rage  for  doubt  that  possesses  him.  A  history,  which 
might  cast  an  imputation  of  disobedience  on  Jesus,  or  of  a  want  of  care  on  his  mother, 
certainly  would  not  have  been  fabricated  in  later  times. 

f  If  the  child's  consciousness  precludes  the  element  of  divinity,  why  not  equally  the 
man's  consciousness?  The  distance  of  the  two  states  from  each  other  is  lost  in  the  infin- 
ite interval  which  separates  both  from  Deity.  It  may  well  be  questioned  whether  in  fix- 
ing the  moment  when  the  divine  consciousness  first  developed  itself  in  Jcsu?,  Olshausen 
is  not  venturing  beyond  his  depth.  Who  shall  say  that  Jesus  was  ever  destitute  of  it  7 — K. 

\  That  the  mother  had  committed  any  wrong  does  not  appear  in  the  narrative.  Jesus 
rebukes  only  her  undue  anxiety  regarding  him,  reminding  her  of  his  higher  relations  and 
duties. — K. 


252  LUKE  II.  41-43. 

which  has  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  a  mother  towards  him !  In  that 
exalted  moment  of  the  first  kindling  of  this  divine  spiritual  light, 
and  of  its  piercing  through  the  human  covering,  this  occurrence  thus 
opens  to  us  one  far  reaching  glance,  but  only  again  to  let  fall  the  veil. 
But  it  is  precisely  in  this  historical  purity  that  the  divine  character 
of  our  Gospels  shews  itself,  particularly  when  compared  with  the 
apocryphal  ones,  "which  fill  up  this  veiled  period  with  absurd  fables. 
During  this  period  the  divine  plant  of  righteousness  was  invisibly 
unfolding  within  itself ;  and  the  reason  that  nothing  is  narrated  of 
this  period  doubtless  is,  that  there  was  nothing  special  to  narrate. 
Jesus  presented  doubtless  the  ideal  of  a  quiet,  truly  childlike  child 
and  youth  ;  and  it  was  only  in  the  depth  of  his  soul  that  his  nature 
was  unfolding,  which,  at  most,  may  have  been  betrayed  by  his  look 
and  bearing.  The  influences  from  the  spiritual  world,  which  he  was 
intended  to  manifest,  gradually  descended  into  him ;  and  all  sur- 
rounding circumstances,  conversations,  sights,  and  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  must  have  become  the  occasions  of  one  spring  after  an- 
other opening  in  him.  For,  to  imagine  that,  according  to  the  ordi- 
nary process  of  training,  any  formative  power  was  exercised  over 
him,  or  direction  given  to  his  mind,  through  Egyptian,  Essenaic,  or 
Rabbinical  wisdom,  is  altogether  at  variance  with  our  conception  of 
the  Messiah,  whom  we  are  to  regard  as  absolutely  determining  and 
controlling  all  agencies.  His  development  is,  therefore,  purely  inde- 
pendent, and  altogether  internal — a  continual  outpouring  from  the 
heavenly  world  into  the  earthly  tabernacle,  of  which  outward  cir- 
cumstances must  be  considered  as  merely  the  exciting  cause.0  It  is 
in  this  light  that  we  are  to  view  his  position  towards  the  priests  in 
the  temple.  The  questions  he  put  to  the  priests,  and  their  answers, 
were  exciting,  awakening  incidents  for  his  inner  life.  But  the  idea 
that  Jesus  taught  in  the  temple,  must  be  rejected  as  monstrous.  A 
child  teaching,  demonstrating,  would  be  a  contradiction  which  it  is 
impossible  the  God  of  order  could  have  designed.  'A/covwv  and  fae- 
pwrwv,  hearing,  and  asking  (ver.  46),  point  plainly  enough  to  his 
capacity  for  receiving  impressions.  The  Scriptures  and  the  lofty 
hopes  which  they  excite,  formed  probably  the  basis  of  his  questions. 
He  inquired  respecting  himself ;  and  we  may  say,  the  whole  endea- 
vour and  desire  of  the  child  Jesus  was  nothing  but  a  longing  for  a 
revelation  of  himself.  The  miraculous  union  of  the  opposites  in  the 
God-man,  the  conjoining  of  temporal  and  eternal,  of  individual 
and  universal,  is  here  presented  before  the  reader's  mind  in  its 
growth  ;  and  ruling  and  serving,  unfettered  dominion  and  child-like 
submission,  are  here  united  to  form  an  ineffable  whole,  which  the 

*  The  words  ol  yovctf  aiirov,  contain  an  intimation,  that  Joseph  the  father  was  yet 
living ;  but  from  this  time  he  does  not  re-appear  in  the  Gospel-history.  He  died,  prob- 
ably before  the  public  appearance  of  Jesus.  See  Matth.  xiii.  55. 


LUKE  II.  41-48.  253 

parents  of  Jesus,  like  unregenerate  men  in  general,  might  indeed 
wonder  at  (ver.  48),  but  were  not  able  to  understand. 

Ver.  41-43. — According  to  the  law  of  Moses  (Ex.  xxiii.  14,  ff. ; 
xxxiv.  23),  the  males  had  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  three  times  yearly 
to  the  principal  feasts  ;*  children  accompanied  them  in  these  jour- 
neys from  their  twelfth  year.  They  were  called  at  that  age  rnton  \sa, 
sons  of  the  law,  and  were  then  under  an  obligation  to  keep  the  law. 
This  time  of  legal  maturity  coincides,  therefore,  very  appropriately 
with  the  first  awakening  of  his  spirit  to  a  higher  consciousness. — 
The  feast  of  the  passover  lasted  seven  days  (to  which  TeteiuoavTuv 
rag  ^epaf,  ver.  43,  refers),  the  first  and  last  of  which  were  observed 
as  Sabbaths,  Exod.  xii.  14  ;  Deut.  xvi.  4. 

Yer.  44-46. — The  parents,  accustomed  to  the  thoughtful  and 
obedient  habits  of  the  child,  commence  .their  journey  without  him,  sup- 
posing, doubtless,  that  he  was  among  their  kindred  or  acquaintances. 
Swodia  from  owodevu,  signifies  one  of  the  festal  caravans,  which 
were  common  among  the  pilgrims  journeying  to  the  feasts,  to  afford 
each  other  more  protection  and  convenience  on  the  journey.  (See 
the  charming  description  of  such  a  pilgrimage  in  Strauss'  beautiful 
romance,  "  Helorts  Pilgrimage."'}  It  was  not  till  after  three  days, 
full  of  anxiety  and  trouble,  that  they  found  the  holy  child  in  the 
holy  place.  The  lepov,  temple,  (to  be  distinguished  from  vaoc,  see  note 
on  Luke  i.  9),  was  an  extensive  structure,  and  had  many  halls  and 
separate  rooms,  in  which  judges  pronounced  their  decisions,  or 
Kabbins  taught  their  schools.  In  such  a  school  (B^*)  we  have  to 
imagine  Jesus. 

Ver.  47,  48. — In  that  company  the  child  was  an  object  of  uni- 
versal astonishment ;  and  this  again  was  a  matter  of  wonder  to  his 
parents..  Though  informed  of  the  high  destiny  of  their  child,  they 
could  not  comprehend  this  phenomenon.  (Iivveoig  generally  stands 
in  the  same  relation  to  <f>p6vrj<ug,  that  vovg  does  to  ao<pia  and  yvwai?; 
ovvemg  denotes  "  the  understanding,"  =  n;-»a.  Yet  this  term  [Isa. 
xi.  2]  is  often  applied  to  divine  things  and  the  comprehension  of 
them— e.  g.,  Col.  i.  9  ;  Eph.  iii.  4  ;  2  Tun.  ii.  7.)  The  mother's  ex- 
clamation (ri  =  diari  =  n»V)  contains  a  gentle  reproof ;  but  its  force 
is  invalidated  by  the  following  words.  The  fault  was  the  mother's, 
who  had  forgotten  the  spiritual  destination  of  her  son. 

*  It  is  not  meant  in  this  to  advocate  any  thing  like  the  views  of  the  Docetse,  but 
only  to  bring  forward  to  view  the  specific  character  of  the  Saviour's  advanceing  develop- 
ment. If  hia  human  nature,  as  sinless,  was  specifically  different  from  fallen  human  na- 
ture, then  the  progress  of  his  training  must  also  have  been  so ;  and  it  must  be  conceived, 
too,  in  the  way  indicated ;  because  if  put  in  any  other  form,  Christ  is  rendered  subject  to 
the  sinful  influences  around  him.  In  point  of  form  only,  we  can  conceive  Christ  as 
receiving — that  is,  as  purely  passive,  e.  g.,  in  learning  language  and  letters.  The  sub- 
stance of  his  knowledge  is,  however,  to  be  conceived  as  active  at  every  stage  of  develop 
ment,  because  in  that  way  alone  it  can  be  pure.  Tholuck's  remarks  to  the  contrary  in  hia 
Glaiibwurdigkeit  der  evangelischen  Geschichte,  S.  219,  ff.,  do  not  appear  to  me  decisiva 


254  LUKE  II.  49-52. 

Ver.  49, 50. — Without  its  being  intended,  the  words  of  Jesus  con- 
vey censure  upon  Mary,  because  they  exactly  declare  the  truth. 
Had  she  borne  perfectly  in  mind  her  son's  spiritual  character,  she 
would  herself  have  led  him  to  those  scenes,  whither  the  higher 
Spirit  now  attracted  him.  (Zrjrelv,  in  connexion  with  the  following 
del  elvai  /ite,  conveys  the  notion  of  uncertainty,  indecision ;  this  was 
what  was  wrong  in  Mary's  state  of  mind ;  she  might  have  known 
where  alone  Jesus  would  naturally  be  found.)  Ta  rov  narpog  refers 
certainly  immediately  to  the  temple,  as -the  visible  dwelling-place  of 
the  invisible  God.  But  in  the  child's  higher  consciousness,  which 
tended  upwards,  the  meaning  of  the  words  goes  further.  This 
deeper  sense  of  the  words,  which  points  to  the  oneness  of  the  Son 
with  the  Father,  was  not  understood  by  the  parents,  from  their 
Old  Testament  point  of  view  ;  for  they  could  hardly  fail  to  perceive, 
that  he  spoke  with  immediate  reference  to  the  temple.  Still  the 
mother  felt  a  strong  impression  from  the  deep  saying  (ver.  51),  and 
laid  it  up  in  her  heart  (ver.  19),  where  it  revived  at  its  time,  so  that 
she  could  tell  of  it. 

Ver.  51. — The  words  :  not  r\v  vTroraooopevog  avroig,  and  he  was 
subject  to  them,  are  evidently  intended  here  to  guard  against  the 
possible  misunderstanding,  that  Jesus  had  manifested  a  will  not 
subject  to  his  parents  ;  not  so  much  in  the  sense  of  ordinary  dis- 
obedience, which  is  inconceivable  in  an  offspring  of  the  Spirit,  as  in 
a  higher  relation.  It  might  be  supposed,  that  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
would  now  have  assumed  the  appearance  of  ruling  over  the  parents  ; 
this  the  Evangelist  contradicts  by  the  express  observation,  that  the 
Son  of  God  still  submitted  himself  always  to  the  human  will  of  his 
parents.  The  general  idea  of  our  Lord's  voluntary  humiliation 
(Phil.  ii.  7,  ff.)  appears,  therefore,  here  again,  as  already  pointed  out 
in  the  note  on  Luke  ii.  21,  22. 

Ver.  52. — The  history  of  the  childhood  closes  with  a  new  men- 
tion (see  Luke  ii.  49)  of  the  child's  bodily  and  spiritual  advance- 
ment. (UpoKOKTEiv,  in  the  sense  of  "  to  advance,"  "  to  grow." 
[See  Gal.  i.  14  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  16 ;  iii.  9.]  'H/U/a'a  is  not  to  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  "greatness,"  "  stature,"  as  in  Luke  xix.  3  ;  it  is  better 
to  take  it  as  "  age,"  in  which  the  whole  physical  part  of  life  is  in- 
cluded. Xdpi$,  favour,  is  to  be  taken  in  a  different  sense  from  that 
which  it  has  in  ii.  40.  It  is  here  represented  as  being  in  a  state  of 
development,  which  is  not  applicable  to  the  divine  love  ;  for  towards 
the  Son  of  God,  that  was  always  alike  and  the  same.  The  refer- 
ence to  God  and  man  shews  that  the  idea  of  being  pleased  is 
prominent  in  %dpig,  so  that  it  may  be  taken  =  evdoida,  good-will. 
This  might  increase,  in  so  far  as,  in  the  human  life  of  Jesus,  that 
glory  unfolded  itself  more  and  more,  which  must  secure  the  approval 
of  God  and  of  all  the  good. 


SECOND    P  AET. 

OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST— CHRIST'S  BAPTISM  AND 

TEMPTATION, 

MATTH.  iii.  1 — iv.  12;  MARK  i.  2-13  ;  LUKE  iii.  1 — iv.  13. 


§  1.  JOHN'S  TEACHING  AND  BAPTISM. 

(Matth.  iii.  1-12  ;  Mark  i.  2-8 ;  Luke  iii.  1-20.) 

IN  the  second  part  of  the  Gospel-history,  the  reader  is  brought 
nearer  to  its  great  cardinal  events.  The  Evangelists  tell  us,  in  the 
following  paragraphs,  how  the  public  appearance  of  Jesus  was  pre- 
pared for.  First,  the  Baptist  visibly  and  outwardly  prepared  the 
way  for  our  Lord  ;  then,  inwardly  and  in  the  narrow  circle  of  those 
who  feared  God,  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  temptation 
of  Jesus,  completed  the  preparation. 

John  appears  here  quite  in  conformity  with  the  angel's  prediction 
in  Luke  i.  17,  repeated  by  Zacharias  in  ver.  76,  as  a  prophet  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elias.  In  the  whole  of  his  labours  he  represents 
the  law,  which  demands  holiness  and  righteousness,  but  supplies  no 
power.  His  outward  appearance  answers  to  his  inward  character; 
he  presents  himself  austere  and  stern,  separated  from  the  world,  and 
revealing  to  it  the  strictness  of  the  Divine  Judge,  His  preaching 
of  repentance  is  a  commentary  on  Rom.  iii.  20  :  "  By  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin."  John  was  appointed  to  awaken  slumbering  minds, 
to  rouse  to  a  sense  of  the  need  of  salvation,  that  the  Saviour  might 
find  hearts  prepared  to  receive  the  fulness  of  blessings,  which  he  came 
to  bring  ;  whence,  too,  Jesus  begins  at  once  to  invite  to  himself  the 
poor  and  the  hungry.  Though  John,  therefore,  stands  in  close  con- 
tact with  the  New  Testament  economy,  yet,  in  his  character  and 
work,  there  is  no  approach  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel ;  he  represents 
purely  the  law,  and  forms  only  the  point  of  contact  between  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  as  the  top-stone  of  the  Old  Testa- 


256  MATTHEW  III.  1. 

ment  edifice.  (Here  compare  Matth.  xi.  9,  ff.)  This  close  proximity, 
and  yet  undeniably  wide  separation,  of  Jesus  and  the  Baptist,  ex- 
presses very  vividly  the  difference  of  the  two  economies  ;  the  law 
and  the  Gospel  are  two  separate  spheres  of  life,  which  may  not  be 
blended  ;  faith  alone,  and  the  mysterious  act  of  regeneration  thence 
resulting,  conduct  us  from  the  one  to  the  other.  John,  therefore, 
as  the  crown  and  completion  of  the  Old  Testament  economy,  and 
perfectly  expressing  its  character,  stands  exalted  among  those  who 
are  born  of  women  ;  but  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  God  (as  being 
born  of  God)  is  greater  than  he.*  But  the  work  of  the  Baptist 
was  not  confined  to  the  "  preaching  of  repentance  ;"  it  included  also 
an  external  rite — namely,  baptism.f  As  regards  this  rite,  we 
are  here  less  concerned  with  its  relation  to  proselyte-baptism, 
than  to  the  Christian  sacrament  of  baptism.  With  reference  to 
the  baptism  of  proselytes,  it  seems  probable  to  me,  that  an 
actual  baptism — i.  e.,  a  lustration  performed  on  the  proselyte  by 
another,  did  not  take  place  before  the  baptism  of  John ;  subse- 
quently, it  may  have  arisen  out  of  the  lustrations  so  long  cus- 
tomary, which  every  one  performed  on  himself.  J  Had  such  a 
baptism  existed,  the  choice  of  this  rite  would  have  been  less 
appropriate ;  for  it  was  by  no  means  John's  intention  to  set  up  a 
new  communion,  into  which  he  was  to  initiate  by  his  baptism ;  it 
was  only  that  those  who  were  living  under  the  Old  Testament 
economy  should  be  thereby  represented  as  provisionally  cleansed, 
and  consequently  not  unworthy  to  receive  the  Messiah.  Just  as 
little  does  it  seem  possible  to  prove  that  the  view  of  the  later 
Jews  respecting  the  Messiah's  baptism  existed  before  the  time  of 

*  See  Hengstenberg's  Christol.,  B.  iii,  S.  460,  ff.,  where  this  view  is  opposed,  and  a 
higher  character  claimed  for  John.  But  if  the  New  Testament  is  not  to  relinquish  all 
that  is  specific,  regeneration  and  the  real  experience  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ought  not 
to  be  anticipated.  Under  the  Old  Testament  there  was  only  faith  in  the  forgiveness  to 
come ;  sin  itself  remained,  under  divine  forbearance,  till  the  sacrifice  was  offered  on  Cal- 
vary. (Rom.  iii.  25.)  All  that  the  Old  Testament  possessed  and  could  give,  the  Baptist 
did  possess ;  but  the  essence  of  the  New  Testament  was  not  his,  since  he  died  before  the 
completion  of  Christ's  work.  (See  1  Pet.  i.  10,  ffi;  Heb.  xi.  39,  40.)  [Olshausen  is  surely 
wrong.  The  essence  of  the  New  Testament  is  precisely  what  John  and  the  ancient  saints 
did  possess.  In  the  outward  form — in  clearness  of  view,  in  the  fulness  and  freedom  of 
spiritual  development — the  New  Economy  is  immeasurably  superior. — [K. 

f  See  a  fuller  discussion  on  John's  baptism  in  note  on  Acts  xix.  4,  from  which  pas- 
sage it  is  probable  that  John  baptized  with  the  formula :  Ba-rrri^u  ae  elf  rov  tpxopevov, 
1  baptize  thee  into  him  who  cometh. 

\  The  preponderance  of  arguments  seems  to  me  to  be  on  the  side  of  Schnecken- 
burger :  Ueber  das  Altar  der  Proselyten-Taufe,  Berlin,  1828 ;  the  opposite  opinion,  that 
John  adapted  the  custom  already  existing  to  his  purpose,  is  defended  by  Bengel,  in  a 
book  with  the  same  title,  Tubingen,  1814.  As  the  Old  Testament  furnishes  no  data  for 
the  decision  of  the  question,  and  all  Rabbinical  writings  can  be  but  uncertain  testimo- 
nies on  matters  before  the  Christian  era,  it  would  be  difficult  to  arrive  at  any  well  estab- 
lished conclusion  as  to  the  earliest  customs  at  the  receiving  of  proselytes.  See  also 
Matthies  de  Baptismate,  BeroL  1831.  8vo. 


MATTHEW  III.  1.  257 

Christ  ;  the  very  circumstance,  that  John  baptized,  seems  opposed 
to  this  supposition  ;  for,  if  it  had  been  generally  regarded  as  the 
prerogative  of  the  Messiah  to  baptize,  John  would  not  have  as- 
sumed it  himself.  (See  this  point  more  fully  treated  in  note  on 
John  i.  25.)  No  special  historical  incident  is  necessary  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  John's  baptism.  Since  lustrations  were  common  in 
the  Jewish  worship,  it  would  readily  occur  to  him  to  represent,  by  a 
symbolical  rite,  the  repentance  which  he  preached.  True,  this  was 
not  done  by  his  own  arbitrary  will — the  Divine  Spirit'  who  quick- 
ened him  was  his  guide  in  this  institution,  as  in  all  that  he  did  ;  he 
was  sent  to  baptize  with  water,  John  i.  33.  The  question,  how 
John's  baptism,  should  be  viewed  in  relation  to  Christian  baptism,  is 
of  more  importance.  It  is  evident,  that  the  baptism  of  John  cannot 
be  identical  with  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  which  was  not  ordained 
till  after  the  resurrection  (Matth.  xxviii.  19 ;  Mark  xvi.  16);  the  former 
was  wanting  in  the  essential  power  of  the  Spirit  (John  i.  26);  it  was 
a  kovrpbv  fieravolac;,  a  washing  of  repentance,  but  not  a  hovrpbv 
irahiyyeveoias,  a  washing  of  regeneration  (Luke  iii.  3  ;  Tit.  iii.  5). 
Quite  parallel  with  John's  baptism  of  repentance  was  the  baptism  of 
the  disciples  before  the  perfecting  of  our  Lord  and  the  appointment 
of  the  sacrament,  to  which  John  refers  particularly,  John  iv.  1,  2. 
Since  the  regenerating  Spirit-  was  yet  wanting  (John  vii.  39),  that 
baptism  could  only  exercise  a  negative  effect,  just  as  the  preaching 
of  the  disciples  before  the  Saviour's  glorification,  had  more  of  the 
character'of  John's.  (Matth.  x.  7,  compared  with  iii.  1.)  Notwith- 
standing the  similarity  in  the  form  of  the  action,*  the  essence  was 
very  different.  In  Christian  baptism,  according  to  its  ideal  concep- 
tion (Rom.  vi.  4),  the  birth  of  the  new  higher  being,  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  alone  can  impart,  was  to  coincide  with  the  extinction  of  the 
<  old  life.f  In  tlie_baptism  of  ^children,  however,  winch  the,  .church, 
J  for_wige  reasons,  introduced  subsequently,  the  sacred  action  returned, 
vas  it  were,  again  to  thFTower  g1?oundof  John's  baptism  ;£  for  which 
reason  a  fresh  act  must  be  joined  to  it  after  the  baptized  attains  to 
actual  consciousness,  in  order  to  complete  that  which  can  take  place 
only  in  a  conscious  individual.  If,  therefore,  John's  baptism  was  on 

*  John's  baptism  was  most  probably  like  the  Christian,  not  only  in  this,  that,  in  it, 
the  baptizing  party  performed  the  immersion  on  the  baptized  (which  was  the  specific  dif- 
ference between  baptism  and  all  other  lustrations),  but  that  a  formula  was  used  at  the 
immersion,  as  remarked  above. 

f  The  distinction  may  be  thus  stated.  In  John's  baptism  it  was  virtually  said ;  "  As 
thou  art  now  immersed,  so  hast  thoa  leserved  to  be  destroyed  in  death;  as  thou  now 
ariscst,  so  shovJdest  thou  arise  as  a  new  n  an."  In  the  Christian  baptism,  on  the  con- 
trary the  language  is  :  "  As  thou  art  now  immersed,  so  art  thou  now  buried  into  the  vicar- 
ious death  of  Christ ;  as  thou  now  emergest,  so  art  thou  born  again  to  a  new  man." — [B. 
Perhaps  not  entirely !  Grant  that,  as  conscious  conversion  to  conscious  faith  in 

rist  is  impossible  in  the  infant,  a  new  man  is  not  yet  born,  still  he  is,  as  it  were,  pa* 
rively  conceived. — [E. 
VOL.  I.— 17 


258  MATTHEW  III.  1. 

a  much  inferior  level  to  the  Christian  ordinance,  yet  it  was  not  an 
empty  rite ;  only,  it  could  not  impart  more  than  he  who  administered 
it  possessed.  It  accomplished  the  blessing  of  the  law  in  those  who 
received  it,  since  it  brought  repentance  to  perfection  ;  but  then, 
indeed,  it  pointed  to  another  baptism,  which  bestowed  the  Spirit — 
a  sense  of  whose  need  that  first  baptism  had  excited. 

Luke  iii.  1,  affords  us  an  important  chronological  datum.  John 
the  Baptist  began  his  ministry  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  ;  as 
John  was  six  months  older  than  Jesus  (Luke  i.  36),  the  mention  of 
this  circumstance  (compared  with  Luke  iii.  23)  is  a  hint  as  to  the 
Saviour's  age.  True,  it  is  only  a  hint.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the 
age  of  Jesus  is  not  given  exactly  (Luke  iii.  23,  7]v  tioel  r^idnovTa 
ir&v)  ;  then,  too,  the  interval  between  the  public  appearance  of  John 
and  of  Jesus,  is  not  definitely  stated.  In  any  case,  the  year  of 
Christ's  birth,  as  is  evident  from  the  previous  remarks  on  that  point, 
is  placed  too  late  in  the  chronology  of  Dionysius,  as  the  fifteenth 
year  of  Tiberius  begins  with  the  19th  of  August  of  the  year  27  after 
Christ.*  The  mention  of  the  different  princes  ruling  in  Palestine 
at  that  time,  is  another  aid  in  determining  the  date  of  John's  pub- 
He  appearance. 

(The  term  ityefwvevG),  govern,  like  &CT-W,  is  used  for  different  gra- 
dations in  the  Koman  provincial  administration.  Pilate  was  only 
procurator  of  Judea,  which  office  he  sustained  ten  years,  and  laid  it 
down  about  the  time  of  Tiberius'  death,  being  deposed  by  Vitellius, 
fit  that  time  pro-consul  of  Syria.  (Terpap^eo),  to  be  tetrarch,  meant 
originally  to  govern  the  fourth  part  of  a  great  territory,  then  in  a  wider 
sense  to  rule  in  general,  but  still  in  an  inferior  capacity.  Thus  Cicero 
calls  Deiotarus  a  tetrarch  [Cic.  ad.  div.  i.  15.]  Ethnarch  was  a 
higher  title  ;  it  was  borne  by  Archelaus,  Herod  the  Great's  eldest 
son.  Luke  comprises  the  two  provinces  of  Batanea  and  Auranitis, 
under  the  name  'Irovpa/a.) 

The  only  remarkable  circumstance  in  Luke's  enumeration  is,  that 
in  the  words  "  Lysanias  being  Tetrarch  of  Abilene,"  he .  mentions 
even  the  governor  of  Abilene,  the  territory  of  the  town  Abela  near 
Antilibanus,  which  lay  beyond  the  boundaries  of  Palestine.  Besides, 
no  Lysanias  is  spoken  of  as  governor  of  this  region  in  the  time  of 
Tiberius  ;  but  thirty  years  earlier,  a  man  of  that  name  was  governor, 
who  was  slain  by  Antony.  If  we  consider,  however,  that  the  town, 
and  the  territory  belonging  to  it,  was  so  inconsiderable,  that  it  could 
not  possibly  be  expected  that  all  its  rulers  should  necessarily  be 

*  In  this  way  the  years  of  his  associated  rule  with  Augustus  are  not  included.  It  is 
according  to  this  date  that  the  calculation  of  the  Abbot  Dionysius  Exiguus  is  made,  with 
whom  our  era  had  its  origin.  Hose,  in  his  Leben  Jesu,  S.  39,  ff.,  whom  Meyer  follows  in 
his  commentary  on  this  passage,  is  inclined,  erroneously,  to  hold  to  this  interpretation  as 
the  correct  one,  as  he  regards  the  rest  of  the  information  in  the  history  of  the  childhood 
as  mythical. 


MATTHEW  III.  1.  259 

mentioned  by  the  historians,  the  silence  of  authors  about  this  prince 
is  not  at  all  surprising.  To  remove  all  doubt,  we  need  only  to  sup- 
pose that  Augustus  restored  a  son  or  a  descendant  of  that  elder 
Lysanias.  As  Abilene  was  on  the  borders  of  Galilee,  the  scene  of 
Christ's  ministry,  this  might  induce  the  Evangelist  to  mention  the 
prince  of  this  limited  territory.*  What  Luke  had  designated  so  pre- 
cisely, Matthew  gives  (iii.  1)  in  the  indefinite  formula  "  in  those 
days."  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  memoirs,  which  Matthew  un- 
doubtedly used  in  the  first  chapters,  extended  further,  and  that  in 
them  this  formula  would  be  in  connexion  with  some  nearer  event. 
It  has,  however,  like  the  Hebrew  cnn  Di»»a,  often  a  more  extensive 
reference  (see  Exod.  ii.  11.)  After  the  chronological  reference  to  the 
political  rulers  of  that  period,  Luke  subjoins  a  notice  of  the  heads  of 
the  ecclesiastical  government  at  that  time.  Two  high  priests  are 
mentioned,  Luke  iii.  2 — Annas  and  Caiaphas.  The  reading  dpxiepewg 
is  doubtless  preferable  to  the  plural.  From  the  circumstance  of  two 
names  following,  the  singular  was  changed,  which,  however,  in  the 
meaning  of  the  Evangelist,  referred  to  the  proper  high  priest — the 
one  actually  in  office.  The  latter  was  the  officiating  high  priest ; 
but  his  father-in-law  Annas,  who  had  held  the  office  before,  and  was 
deposed,  still  possessed  great  influence.  (See  this  point  more  fully 
discussed  in  the  history  of  the  passion  in  the  note  on  Matth.  xxvi. 
57,  if.)  At  this  time,  then,  John  came  forward  publicly  (napajivercu 
in  Matth.  iii.  1,  =  r)k6ev  in  Luke  iii.  3)  and  preached  repentance. 
The  wilderness  (ep^of )  is  spoken  of  as  the  place  where  be  preached, 
which  is  not  to  be  understood,  of  course,  as  literally  void  of  men,  but 
rather  as  pasture  ground  (i^^a).  But  in  the  fact,  that  John  preach- 
ed in  the  wilderness,  and  not  in  towns,  we  discover  the  peculiar  cha- 
racter of  this  witness  to  the  truth.  It  belongs  to  John's  character 
ioflee  from  man  (Luke  i.  80),  and  to  preach  to  those  who  seek  him  ; 
while  the  Redeemer  himself  seeks  men.  (The  wilderness  of  Judea 
[Matth.  iii.  1]  bordered  on  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea.  See 
Joseph  de.  bell.  Judg.  i.  3,  10.  Luke  [iii.  3]  calls  it  therefore  irepi- 
%upos  rov  'lopddvov  =  ^n»n  nss,  Gren.  xiii.  10.)  The  subjoined  clause, 
tyevero  pijfia  Qeov  KTH  'ludwrjv,  the  word  of  God  came  to  John,  is  pe- 
culiar to  Luke  iii.  2.  It  corresponds  to  the  phrase  so  common  in 
the  prophets  V?  nirn  ian  n;n.  This  remark,  in  the  first  place,  repre- 
sents the  public  appearance  of  John,  not  as  something  originating 
from  himself,  but  as  determined  by  an  influence  from  above.  More- 
over, according  to  it,  the  manner  in  which  the  higher  world  influ- 
enced the  mind  of  John,  was  not  different  from  its  influence  on  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  While  in  the  New  Testament  we 
find  a  more  quiet,  continually  active  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit 

*  See  Tholuck,  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  ev.  Gesch.,  S.  198,  and  Schneclcenburger's  article 
in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1833,  H.  4. 


260  MATTHEW  III.  1,  2. 

in  the  minds  of  believers,  as  peculiar  to  them  (expressed  by  ut-vetv 
in  John's  language),  it  appears  in  the  Old  Testament  rather  as  a  sud- 
den, momentary  one,  which  is  then  succeeded  by  other  dry,  and,  as  it 
were,  spiritless  periods,  such  as  appeared  afterwards  in  the  life  of 
the  Baptist.  (See  note  on  Matth.  xiv.  1,  ff.)  For  this  reason  the 
formula  V?  rvirr  T»,  the  hand  of  Jehovah  upon  one,  is  frequently  ap- 
plied to  the  inspired  moments  of  the  prophets,  to  denote  the  violent 
and  sudden  character  of  the  influence.  Such  formulas  are,  of  course, 
not  used  of  Jesus,  because  divine  things  were  not  manifested  to  him 
at  single  moments  of  his  life  ;  but  he  himself  was  the  one  eternal 
manifestation  of  the  Divine  —  the  Word.  (On  the  relation  of  pfjiM 
and  Aoyof  ,  which  imply  the  same  fundamental  idea  of  the  relation 
of  ktyeaQai  and  elvai,  see  note  on  John  i.  1.) 

The  object  of  the  Baptist's  preaching,  which  is  not  specified  in 
Matth.  iii.  1,  Luke  describes  more  definitely,  by  designating  it,  in 
iii.  3,  pd-nriciia  fieravoiag,  a  baptism  of  repentance.  (See  Matth.  iii. 
11,  where  John  says,  fia-nrifa  elc;  nerdvoiav.}  Merdvoia,  repentance, 
change  of  mind,  denotes  here  the  result  of  the  law  in  its  effect  on 
the  mind.  By  its  form  of  inflexible  requirement,  it  rouses  to  a  sense 
of  weakness,  and  to  a  longing  for  a  power  sufficient  to  satisfy  it.  It 
is  therefore,  in  fact,  a  change  of  mind  (vovc;)  in  its  deepest  vital 
principle.  Considered  in  itself,  indeed,  it  is  something  merely  nega- 
tive, which  stands  in  need  of  a  positive  element  to  complete  it  ;  and 
this  is  the  Spirit,  whom  Christ  obtained,  and  whom  men  receive  by 
faith.  This  is  conveyed  in  the  additional  clause  in  Luke  iii.  3,  and 
Mark  i.  4,  el$  dtyeoiv  dpapri&v,  for  the  remission  of  sins.  John's 
preaching  was  not  itself  to  effect  the  remission,  but  to  prepare  for 
that  remission,  which  was  to  be  accomplished  by  Christ.  It  is  not 
inappropriate  therefore  to  supply  ep^o/uew/v,  coming,  future.  (On 
this  point  see  note  on  Acts  xix.  4,  where  Paul  instructs  the  disciples 
of  the  Baptist  in  the  import  of  their  baptism.) 

Matth.  iii.  2.—  The  presence  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  put  for- 
ward as  a  motive  for  repentance,  since  it  excluded  persons  in  their 
natural  unchanged  state  of  heart.  (The  perfect  fjyytite,  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  present  sense  ;  so  that  the  meaning  is,  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  already  present  —  that  is,  in  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  who 
represents  it,  and  of  whom  John  says  :  peoog  vfuov  Eorrjrcev,  ov  vfteis 
OVK  oidare,  there  standeth  one  among  you,  etc.  John  i.  26.) 

The  phrase  flaoikeia  r&v  ovpavtiv,  kingdom  of  heaven,  does  not 
occur  except  in  Matthew.  In  2  Tim.  iv.  18,  we  find  (3am^eia  enov- 
Qaviog,  heavenly  kingdom.  The  more  common  phrase  is  /3aaiheia  TOV 
Qeov,  TOV  XOIOTOV,  kingdom  of  God,  of  Christ,*  or  simply 


*  It  is  very  seldom  that  the  phrase  ftaaiktia.  TOV  vlov  TOV  uv6pum>v  is  put  for 
rov  XpiaTov,  as  in  Matth.  xiii.  41.    In  the  passage  Mark  xi.  10,  /3aatAe/a  TOV  AaQid  occurs, 
Inasmuch  as  David  is  viewed  as  a  type  of  Messiah  the  king. 


MATTHEW  III.  2.  261 

Qeov  being  left  to  be  supplied  (Luke  xii.  32,  and  frequently).  In 
the  Old  Testament,  the  expression  n:»»n  rssV»,  or  eprfVj?  his'??,  does 
not  occur,  nor  does  it  appear,  except  in  the  later  Jewish  writings. 
In  the  Apocrypha  we  meet  with  j3aaiX.da  QEOV  as  early  as  Wisdom  x. 
10.  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  pervades 
the  whole  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  appears  in  its 
most  mature  form  in  the  prophets.  See  Isa.  ii.  1-4  ;  Micah  iv.  3, 
ff. ;  Isa.  xi.  1,  ff. ;  Psalm  Ixxxv.  11,  12  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  ff.  ;  xxxi.  31, 
ff. ;  xxxii.  37,  ff. ;  xxxiii.  14,  ff. ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  ff. ;  xxxvii.  24, 
ff.)  Daniel  describes  the  expected  holy  state  of  things,  which  all 
the  prophets  regarded  as  future,  expressly  as  a  kingdom  of  everlast- 
ing duration.  (Dan.  ii.  44  ;  vii.  14,  27.)  Just  as  the  Messiah  also 
is  often  described  as  a  king  (in  which  respect  David  is  especially  re- 
garded as  his  type,  Dan.  ix.  25 ;  Psalm  ii.  6  ;  Zech.  xiv.  9 ;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  24.)  The  fundamental  idea  of  the  anticipated  kingdom  of 
God,  as  presented  in  the  Old  Testament,  does  not  differ  from  that 
of  the  New.  The  idea  of  a  kingdom  necessarily  implies  the  dis- 
tinction of  the  governor  and  the  governed.  But  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  the  divine  will  appears  as  ruling  absolutely.  In  so  far,  there- 
fore, as  in  the  sinful  world  the  will  of  God  is  conceived  as  being 
subordinated,  the  period  of  his  absolute  rule  must  yet  be  future. 
The  kingdom  of  God,  therefore,  forms  a  contrast  to  the  kingdom  of 
sin,  or  of  its  representative,  the  ruler  of  this  world,  ap^uv  rov  Koopov 
TOVTOV.  The  coming  of  the  former  kingdom  involves  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  latter  :  the  prevalence  of  the  latter  limits  the  influence 
of  the  former.  But-  as  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  prophecies  does 
not  usually  develope  the  ideas,  which  are  the  subjects  of  its  contem- 
plation, and  especially  does  not  present  them  in  their  gradual  un- 
folding in  successive  ages,  but,  as  it  were,  concentrated  in  a  single 
picture  ;  so  also  with  its  declarations  respecting  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  prophetic  communications  contain  lively  delineations  of 
it,  agreeably  to  which  the  dominion  of  sin,  both  internal  and  exter- 
nal, is  depicted  as  overthrown,  and  the  dominion  of  God,  and  his 
will,  established  ;  but  as  the  external  and  internal  are  not  kept  per- 
fectly distinct  by  them,  but  are  blended  together,  succession  of  time 
is  also  particularly  neglected  ;  the  great  outline  of  the  world's  spirit- 
ual progress  is  drawn  at  once  in  grand  perspective,  and  events  separ- 
ated by  wide  intervals  of  time  are  brought  into  juxtaposition.  What 
is  included  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  germ,  appears  in  the  New  in  its 
free  expansion,  and  thus  first  reveals  in  its  fulness  the  fundamental 
idea  which  it  includes.  The  kingdom  of  God  appears,  accordingly, 
as  a  kingdom  always  existing — established  among  fallen  men  con- 
temporaneously with  the  first  announcement  of  the  Gospel — typi- 
cally represented  in  the  Mosaic  theocracy — bestowed  in  Christ  essen- 
tially complete  in  its  conception — since  then  secretly  advancing 


262  MATTHEW  III.  2. 

in  the  souls  of  men — destined  to  a  final  conquest  over  every  thing, 
and  to  penetrate  harmoniously  all  forms  both  of  outward   and 
inward  life  throughout  creation.     With  respect  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  unfold  this  idea  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  they  distinguish,  first,  clearly  between  its  external  and 
internal  character.     In  the  latter  relation,  the  kingdom  of  Q  od  ap- 
pears according  to  the  New  Testament  conception  as  actually  pre- 
sent, not  .merely  in  the  person  of  the  Saviour  himself,  but  also  in  his 
believing  followers,  who  were  translated  into  the  spirit  of  his  life.     In 
the  spirit's  inner  life  and  consciousness — i.  e.,  in  faith,  the  absolute 
dominion  of  the  divine  is  realized.     We  find  it  thus  viewed  as  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  the  soul,  in  Luke  xvii.  21  :  i\  (laoiteia  TOV  Qeov 
ivrbs  vfj&v  ianv.     (See  Bom.  xiv.  17.)     But  in  its  external  relation, 
the  kingdom  of  God  appears  in  the  New  Testament  also  as  yet 
future,  and  still  an  object  of  desire.     The  Spirit  of  Christ,  as  the 
principle  which  secures  an  immediate  dominion  in  the  depths  of  the 
inward  life,  strives  for  an  unconditional  supremacy  over  all  its  out- 
ward  relations.     But   the  extension  of  this   divine   dominion  in 
Christ  to  external  circumstances,  is  gradual,  and  hence  even  believers 
must  hope  only  for  its  gradual  realization.     In  its  relation  to  ex- 
ternal things,  we  find,  however,  a  twofold  modification  of  the  idea 
in  the  New  Testament.    First,  the  sphere  of  life  in  which  the 
Christian  element  prevails — that  is,  the  church — is  conceived  in  its 
visible  form  as  an  external  communion.     In  this  respect  the  king- 
dom of  God  itself  is  progressive — expanding  gradually  in  this  sinful 
world — still  mixed,  to  a  certain  extent,  with  sinful  elements.     (See 
note  on  Matth.  xiii.  47,  ff.)     For  it  was  only  in  the  person  of  the 
Saviour  that  the  Paotkeia,  kingdom,  was  exhibited  as  at  once  outward- 
ly and  inwardly  complete.     But  further,  its  external  condition  also 
is  conceived  as  made  to  harmonize  with  the  internal,  and  as  corre- 
spondingly penetrated  by  the  sovereign  will  of  God  ;  and  in  this  view 
the  kingdom  appears  absolutely  complete,  but  future.     That  which 
was  first  to  sway  the  souls  of  men,  presents  itself  in  the  end  as 
ruling  likewise  in  the  creation.     (Rom.  viii.  19,  ff.)     In  this  respect 
the  (3aoiheia  might  be  called  emyetog  earthly  (in  contrast  with  irrov- 
pdviog,  2  Tim.  iv.  18)  ;  but  for  wise  reasons  this  epithet  is  not  ap- 
plied to  it  ;  the  idea  itself,  however,  is  everywhere  to  be  met  with 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  promise,  that  at  the  coming  of  Christ 
the  kingdom  of  God  will  become  externally  prevalent  (see  note  on 
Matt.  xx.  21  ;  xxvi.  29  ;  Luke  xxi.  31 ;  John  xviii.  36.)     In  very 
many  passages,  however,  its  internal  and  external  aspects  are  not 
strictly  separated,  but  are  blended  with  greater  generality  and  in- 
definiteness,  as  in  the  Old  Testament.     The  kingdom  is  then  the 
ideal  future  world  (see  Luke  xxiii.  42,  the  words  of  the  thief),  which, 
as  being  present  in  the  souls  of  believers,  but  absent  in  its  com- 


MATTHEW  III.  2.  263 

pleteness,  may  be  spoken  of  as  at  once  near  and  distant. — There  is 
another  division  in  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  is  equally  unknown  to  the  Old — viz.,  its  relation 
sometimes  to  the  individual,  at  others  to  the  human  race  collect- 
ively. According  to  these  different  relations,  again,  the  kingdom  is 
represented  sometimes  as  already  come,  at  others,  as  to  come.  For 
in  so  far  as  that  spiritual  element,  which  in  Christ  diffuses  itself 
through  mankind,  and  establishes  among  them  the  kingdom  of 
God,  has  taken  possession  of  an  individual,  to  him  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  present,  and  he  is  in  that  kingdom  ;  yet  even  for  him  it  is 
still  to  come,  not  merely  in  so  far  as  the  higher  principle  of  life  ob- 
tains but  a  gradual  control  over  his  faculties,  but  also  in  so  far  as  it  is 
destined  to  quicken  the  entire  race,  and  to  meet  his  view  as  mani- 
fested among  them.  The  relation  of  the  whole  human  race — viewed 
as  an  individual — is  similar  ;  for  though  the  kingdom  of  God  (in  the 
church)  exists  in  the  race,  and  the  race  (in  believers  as  its  represent- 
atives) in  the  kingdom  of  God,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  king- 
dom is  still  to  come  with  respect  to  the  race  also. 

Thus  the  one  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  appears  in  the  New 
Testament  alone,  applied  to  different  relations  ;  and  from  the  various 
contrasts  in  which  it  is  placed,  sometimes  one  of  these  relations  is 
more  prominent,  sometimes  another.  Among  the  great  mass  of  the 
Jews  held  captive  by  the  Pharisaical  spirit,  the  idea  of  an  external 
manifestation  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  prevailed.  In  opposition  to 
this  material  view,  the  Saviour  put  forward  its  ideal  character.  Even 
in  the  apostolic  times  sprung  up  the  germs  of  the  Gnostic  idealism, 
which  in  its  doctrine  of  the  QaoiXda,  denied  any  future  real  and  out- 
ward manifestation  of  the  divine  dominion.  This  point  had  therefore 
to  be  defended  in  opposition  to  that  heresy.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Alexandrine  school  had,  at  a  later  period,  to  oppose  the  ideal  aspect 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  to  the  rude  millennarian  views  of  the  ancient 
church  ;  and  through  its  influence  the  view  was  again  gradually 
forced  into  the  back-ground — that  it  is  in  the  nature  of  the  divine 
to  pursue  its  subduing  and  ruling  course  from  within  to  without — 
from  the  individual  to  the  universal.  The  pure  realism  of  the  Bible 
points  out  the  medium  between  the  two  false  paths  of  materialism 
and  spiritualism  in  the  doctrine  of  the  fiamteia.  It  is  not  from  this 
world,  but  yet  in  the  world  (John  xviii.  36) ;  and  as,  in  the  indi- 
vidual, its  renovating  process  is  from  the  inmost  fountain  of  life,  on 
which  it  first  seizes,  to  the  purifying  and  glorification  of  the  body  ; 
so  it  proceeds  gradually  from  the  individuals,  who  at  first  represent 
the  kingdom  of  God,  to  the  whole,  raises  the  earth  to  paradisaic 
purity,  and  finally  perfects  the  universe,  as  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth.  (2  Pet.  iii.  13  ;  Kev.  xxi.  1.) 

If  now,  in  conclusion,  we  cast  a  glance  on  the  passage  under 


264  MATTHEW  III.  2,  3. 

consideration  (Matth.  iii.  2),  and  ask,  in  what  sense  John  the  Bap- 
tist may  have  understood  the  "  kingdom,"  it  is  most  probable,  that, 
in  his  relation  to  the  law,  he  conceived  of  it  with  the  generality  and 
indeterminateness  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  without  incorporating 
with  the  idea  any  thing  false.  We  may  concede  a  certain  affinity 
between  John's  notions  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and  those  that 
prevailed  among  the  people.  Their  belief  in  its  appearance  as  an 
external  one,  was  not  in  itself  false  ;  for  that  is  in  fact  its  consum- 
mation. Their  error  consisted  in  desiring  its  external,  without  its 
internal  and  more  essential  features.  Thus,  as  the  carnal  man  makes 
his  God  for  himself,  so  he  makes  his  kingdom  of  God  for  himself. 
The  spiritual  man  has  a  spiritual  God,  and  a  spiritual  kingdom  of 
God  ;  but  as  the  true  God  became  man,  so  the  kingdom  of  God, 
or  of  heaven,  comes  down  to  earth,  that  heaven  and  earth  may 
celebrate  a  perfect  reconciliation. 

Ver.  3. — The  Evangelists  establish  the  divinity  of  the  Baptist's 
mission  by  passages  from  the  Old  Testament.  All  four  Evange- 
lists (see  John  i.  23)  quote  the  passage  Isa.  xl.  3-5.  Luke  gives  it 
most  fully.  In  common  with  the  other  two,  he  follows  the  LXX. 
with  slight  variations.  Mark  introduces  Mai.  iii.  1  before  it.*  This 
passage,  however,  appears  to  have  first  occurred  to  him  as  parallel, 
while  in  the  act  of  writing  ;  for,  on  the  one  hand,  he  cites  it  (from 
memory)  with  great  variations,  from  the  LXX.,  and,  on  the  other, 
he  has  also  applied  the  formula,  KV  'Roala  ro5  Trpo0?/r^  to  the  passage 
from  Malachi.  The  transcribers  have  indeed  given  iv  rolg  ^po^-aig, 
in  the  prophets,  as  a  correction  ;  but  that  this  reading  is  without 
value  needs  no  proof.  This  passage  of  Mark  is  perhaps  an  unequivo- 
cal sign  that  he  had  documents  before  him,  and  made  use  of  them: 
He  took  the  formula  of  quotation  from  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  in- 
serted from  memory  the  words  of  Malachi,  without  changing  the 
formula,  f  The  whole  prophetic  passage  is  founded  on  the  figure  of 
the  triumphal  entry  of  a  king,  for  whom  the  road  is  leveled.  Since 
the  king  and  his  kingdom,  are  alike  spiritual,  the  heights  and  depths 
are  also  to  be  taken  spiritually,  and  are  to  be  understood  of  those 
mental  states  of  unbelief  and  despair,  of  pride  and  self-sufficiency, 
which  stand  in  the  way  of  the  Saviour's  work.  Quvrj,  voice,  forms 
an  interesting  contrast  with  Aoyo?  (John  i.  1.)  In  the  notion  of 
"  word,"  the  idea  is  likewise  included,  which  is  conveyed  by  the 
articulate  word.  The  "  voice,"  as  such,  denotes  simply  that  which 

*  On  the  passage,  Mai.  iii.  1,  see  further  the  observations  on  Matth.  xi.  10  ;  Luke  viL 
27,  where  the  same  quotation  is  adduced  with  similar  variations,  evidently  indicating  the 
use  of  the  same  sources  of  information. 

f  Hengstenberg's  supposition,  in  his  Christology,  vol.  iii.,  p.  398,  ff.,  464,  ff..  that 
Mark  quoted  the  passage  out  of  Malachi  as  belonging  to  Isaiah,  because  the  former  bor- 
rowed it  from  the  latter,  and  Malachi  is  therefore;  only  the  auctor  secundarius.  appears 
to  me  to  be  forced.  They  are  still  the  words  of  MalachL 


MATTHEW  III.  3-7.  265 

awakens,  excites.  John  introduced  no  new  idea  among  mankind. 
He  claimed  supremacy  over  no  peculiar  department  of  life,  to 
which  he  could  have  introduced  men.  He  was  a  mere  organ  for  a 
powerful  spiritual  influence  in  the  spiritual  waste  of  humanity.  He 
awakened  the  sense  of  need,  which  the  Redeemer  satisfied. 

(QdpayZ,  in  Luke  iii.  5,  6,  =  rdfipog,  (?)  hollow  place,  valley.  This 
is  the  only  place  where  it  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  The  op- 
posites  to  it  are  ftowog  and  opo$ .  The  first  of  these  words,  (3ovv6g,  is 
found  only  in  Luke  xxiii.  30.  The  LXX.  use  it  for  swaa,  elevation, 
hill.  On  ouTijpiov  rov  Qeov,  see  Luke  ii.  30 ;  Acts  xxviii.  28 :  ouTipia 
is  used  in  the  same  way,  Luke  i.  69.  In  the  concluding  formula, 
fyerai  -naaa  odpt;  K.  r.  A.,  the  Evangelist  follows  the  LXX.,  contrary 
to  the  Hebrew  text,  where  the  words  ourrjpiov  r.  6.  are  wanting.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  words  6<f)dr]oer<u  66t;a  rov  tcvpiov,  which  the  LXX. 
have,  agreeably  to  the  original,  are  omitted  by  Luke.  In  the  pro- 
phecy, the  Saviour's  work  is  represented,  quite  after  the  prevail- 
ing mode  of  Old  Testament  representation,  at  once  in  its  comple- 
tion. 

Ver.  4-6. — The  Baptist's  dress  and  manner  of  life  quite  agree 
with  the  portrait  of  Elijah  (2  Kings  i.  8,  compared  with  Zech.  xiii. 
4.)  John  lived  and  laboured  in  an  austere  and  strictly  ascetic  man- 
ner. ('Aiepig  is  the  well-known  large  oriental  locust,  used  as  food  by 
the  poor  ;  Lev.  xi.  22.)  It  was  by  means  of  this  strict  form  of  life, 
and  the  reproving  severity  of  his  character,  that  the  prophet  roused 
the  slumberers  ;  a  form  from  the  past  seemed  to  have  entered  the 
spiritless  present.  The  voice  of  exclamation  echoed  loudly  through, 
the  wilderness  ;  those  who  were  awakened  gathered  round  the 
prophet,  to  gain  ease  for  their  consciences.  The  /3a7m<r/idf,  baptism, 
and  ^ouo^oyrjaig,  confession,  are  specified  as  the  forms  which  John's 
work  assumed.  Confession  is  to  be  viewed  as  the  condition  of  bap- 
tism, since  it  was  intended  to  be,  as  it  were,  a  type  of  the  coming 
forgiveness  to  be  completed  by  the  Messiah,  which  required  genuine 
repentance,  so  that  where  confession  was  wanting,  baptism  also  was 
refused.  (See  ver.  7,  ff.,  the  rejection  of  the  Pharisees.)  The  con- 
fession, however,  is  not  necessarily  a  special  confession  of  individual 
facts  (though  that  is  not  to  be  excluded  in  particular  cases),  but  a 
genuine  expression  of  a  felt  need,  cognizable  to  John's  searching, 
prophetic  spirit. 

Ver.  7. — Those  whom  Luke  comprehends  under  the  term  ox^oi, 
multitudes  (excluding  the  few  sincere-minded),  Matthew  describes 
more  definitely  as  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  These  Jewish  sects, 
so  thoroughly  known  from  the  history  of  the  church,  appear  in  the 
New  Testament  as  the  representatives  of  hypocritical  superstition 
and  carnal  unbelief.  Phariseeism,  however,  had  the  deeper  founda- 
tion ;  it  was  based  on  the  Divine  Word,  only  that  traditional  pre- 


266  MATTHEW  III.  7. 

cepts  had  been  associated  with  it.  Although,  therefore,  the 
Pharisees  (taken  collectively)  are  constantly  opposed  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  particularly  in  the  G-ospels,  because,  by  confound- 
ing things  external  with  things  internal,  they  had  sunk  into  hypocrisy, 
and  pursued  godliness  as  a  trade  ;  yet  there  were  individual  believers 
among  them.  But  Sadduceeism  was  utterly  devoid  of  any  deep 
foundation,  or  any  high  principle  of  life  ;  pure  worldliness  shews 
itself  in  it,  though  often,  as  it  would  seem,  united  with  a  certain 
kindness  of  disposition.  This  sect  was  hence  inconsiderable,  while 
Phariseeism,  embodying,  as  it  did,  something  positive,  was  both 
more  dangerous  in  its  corruption,  and,  in  its  nobler  manifestation, 
more  susceptible  of  a  union  with  the  Gospel.  The  New  Testament 
does  not  speak  of  the  Essenes,  partly  because  they  did  not  come  in 
contact  with  the  public  life  of  the  Jewish  people — partly  because 
their  aim,  though  noble  on  the  whole,  was,  still,  deformed  by  subtle 
errors,  too  dangerous  to  render  them  proper  objects  of  imitation. 
Besides,  it  is  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  to  set  up  nothing  for  imita- 
tion but  the  Saviour  himself,  in  whom  the  fulness  of  all  that  is 
desirable  is  included.  There  was  no  call  for  positive  opposition  to 
the  Essenes,  since  their  exclusiveness  as  a  sect  rendered  them  un- 
known, except  in  narrow  circles,  and  because  the  best  antidote  to 
their  errors  lay  in  the  principles  of  Christian  truth  itself.* 

The  Baptist's  exhortation  to  the  multitude,  who  were  under 
Pharisaic  or  Sadduceean  influence,  and  shared  in  the  corruption  o± 
these  sects,  bears  the  stamp  of  the  strict  legal  spirit  which  John  re- 
presents. He  contrasts,  in  the  Spirit,  the  kingdom  of  the  prince  of 
this  world  with  the  kingdom  of  God,  proclaimed  by  him,  and  takes 
the  depraved  minds,  that  hypocritically  pretended  to  purity  of 
heart,  as  types  of  this  evil  kingdom.  (The  language  yerw/^ora 
tyidv&v  =  »hi  ttK»,  Isa.  xiv.  29,  generation  of  vipers,  is  certainly 
harsh  ;  but  it  is  in  the  nature  of  love  plainly  to  call  evil  evil,  and, 
in  accordance  with  the  truth,  to  refer  it  to  its  origin.  The  serpent 
denotes  what  is  satanic  ;  and  that  Jesus  himself  so  intends  it,  is 
seen  by  a  comparison  of  Matth.  xii.  34  ;  xxiii.  33,  with  John  viii. 
44  ;  Eev.  xx.  2.)  But  their  subjection  to  the  condemnation  of  God 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  absolute  (see  note  on  Acts  xiii.  10,  11);  the 

*  A  correct  view  of  the  Essenaic  sect,  which  had  all  the  faults  common  among  Separ- 
atists, particularly  secret  arrogance  and  dependence  on  good  works,  is  a  sufficient  refuta- 
tion of  the  notion  that  Jesus  had  been  brought  up  in  their  schools.  That  our  Lord  knew 
them,  is  beyond  a  doubt,  since  Galilee  was  their  stronghold;  that  their  existence  may 
have  had  a  stimulating  effect  on  him,  is  likewise  highly  probable  :  only  we  must  never 
forget  that  the  development  of  the  Saviour's  character  was  purely  internal,  influenced  only 
by  spiritual  streams  from  above ;  that  therefore  nothing  can  have  been  adopted  by  him 
from  the  Essenes.  Christ  brought  down  into  the  world  a  principle  of  spiritual  life,  different 
as  heaven  and  earth  from  Essenism,  and  every  other  human  form  of  religious  life — a 
principle  which  invariably  exercised  a  positive  influence  on  what  surrounded  it. 


MATTHEW  III.  7-9.  267 

exhortation  which  follows  in  ver.  8  shews  clearly  the  wish,  that  they 
may  cease  to  be  what  they  are.  But,  as  such,  they  necessarily  come 
under  the  Divine  condemnation.  The  passage,  therefore,  involves 
the  doctrine  of  the  possibility  of  the  generation  of  vipers  being 
transformed  into  children  of  God  by  repentance  and  faith.  ('Opyr/ 
liehkovaa,  for  which  6pyrj  Kp^o^ievr]  is  put  in  1  Thess.  i.  10,  expresses 
the  idea  of  God's  punitive  justice  ;  hence  the  drroKa^vipig  rfjg  &pyrjs 
=  Kpiaig.  See  Kom.  i.  18.  In  John's  exhortation,  agreeably  to 
the  Old  Testament  form  of  conception,  the  last  judgment  [eoxdrj] 
Kpioig]  is  considered  as  concurrent  with  the  appearance  of  the 
Messiah,  as  his  first  and  second  coming  are  not  here  separated.  On 
6pyri  T.  6.,  see  note  on  Matth.  xviii.  34. 

Ver.  8. — These  words  of  reproof  in  John's  discourse  are  followed 
by  words  of  exhortation,  which  urge  the  necessity  of  the  manifesta- 
tion in  actual  life  of  genuine  repentance.  Luke  iii.  11.  ff.,  contains 
the  comment  on  the  works  which  the  Baptist,  from  his  point  of  view, 
demanded.  (The  phrase,  Kapnbg  rrjg  peravoiag  agios,  occurs  once  more, 
with  some  variation,  in  Acts  xxvi.  20.  The  reading  Kapnovg  in  Mat- 
thew is  spurious  ;  it  was  probably  derived  from  the  parallel  passage 
in  Luke. 

Ver.  9. — John  contrasts  the  boasting  of  external  advantages  with 
the  practical  evidencing  of  that  sincerely  repentant  disposition  re- 
quired by  him.  (M?)  dofyre,  think  not,  in  Matthew  is  no  more  super- 
fluous than  JUT?  dp^rja6e,  begin  not,  in  Luke.  The  former  is  to  be 
understood  of  the  fancied  right,  which  the  Pharisees  imagined  they 
possessed,  to  boast  of  their  descent  from  Abraham  ;  the  latter,  of  their 
beginning  with  self  sufficiency  and  vanity  to  plume  themselves  on  that 
right,  both  aloud  in  the  presence  of  men,  and  in  their  own  minds.) 
Being  a  child  of  Abraham,  is  spoken  of  as  the  substance  of  all  the  ad- 
vantages belonging  to  the  theocracy.  In  its  true  import,  this  descent 
was  not  so  much  an  advantage  in  itself,  as  a  stronger  obligation  to 
a  godly  life  and  walk.  Where  this  obligation  was  left  unfulfilled, 
the  supposed  advantage  was  turned  to  a  disadvantage.  (See  Rom. 
ii.  28,  29 ;  iv.  16,  on  the  ideal  conception  of  being  a  child  of  Abra- 
ham, and  sharing  in  the  advantages  of  the  theocracy.)  In  order  to 
teach  them  properly  to  estimate  the  value  of  natural  descent,  the 
Baptist  refers  to  the  free  grace  of  God.  As  it  was  purely  of  grace 
to  have  been  born  in  the  bosom  of  the  theocracy,  so  the  Almighty 
can  reject  those  who  shew  themselves  unworthy  of  such  grace,  and 
call  others  who  were  far  from  his  promises.  ('EyeZpat,  viewed  in  re- 
lation to  those  who  were  born  children  of  Abraham,  involves  their 
rejection.)  The  words  :  dvvarai  6  Qebg  in  TWV  "kiQuv  TOVTUV  fyelpcu 
TEuva  TGJ  'A/3paajU,  God  is  able,  etc.,  do  certainly  admit  of  being  un- 
derstood figuratively  of  the  heathen  ;  just  as  in  the  passage  before 
us,  the  "  trees"  denote  the  Jews  in  that  Pharisaical  sect  which  was 


268  MATTHEW  TIL  9-11. 

going  onward  to  destruction.  But  the  added  TOVTUV,  these,  compels 
us,  doubtless,  to  understand  them  of  the  stones  lying  on  the  banks 
of  Jordan,  in  which  case  the  parallel  with  the  history  of  the  crea- 
tion must  not  be  overlooked.  As  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust 
of  the  earth,  so  he  can  even  now  form  men  out  of  stones. 

Ver.  10. — To  enforce  the  exhortation,  the  time  is  represented  as 
a  decisive  one.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  parallel  is  drawn  between 
the  moral  world  and  the  physical  in  the  same  way  as  here  (Psalm  i 
3 ;  Isa.  vi.  13)  ;  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  very  frequent.  (Matth. 
vii.  19  ;  Bom.  xi.  17.)  The  time  of  harvest  is  that  of  decision  (Kpiai^, 
when  the  chief  question  is  of  fruit.  The  fruit  required  here  was 
outward  righteousness  (ditcatoavvrf),  and  genuine  inward  repentance 
(jtieravom.)  (EnKOTrreodai,  eig  Trvp  ftdhheodai,  are  emblems  of  the  opyrj, 
ver.  7.)  In  Luke  iii.  11-15,  there  follows  an  expansion  of  John's 
address  peculiar  to  that  Evangelist.  It  reveals  plainly  the  Baptist's 
legal  position.  He  recommends  a  faithful  fulfilment  of  the  law ; 
"  the  voice  of  him  who  crieth  in  the  wilderness"  penetrates  not  the 
domain  of  faith  and  love.  He  directed  to  doing  only,  as  those  who 
asked  for  instruction  put  only  the  question,  What  shall  we  do  ?* 
(Updaaetv  in  ver.  13,  = '»«  exigere  scil.  06pov,  to  exact  tribute. — Atatretw, 
to  frighten,  to  exact  by  terror. — SvKcxjxivTeu)  denotes  properly  "  to 
perform  the  part  of  a  petty  and  false  informer  ;"  then  "  to  be  greedy," 
"  avaricious,"  see  Luke  xix.  8.)  As  a  peculiar  trait  in  the  character 
of  the  Baptist,  appears  his  childlike  humility,  which  is  intimated  in 
the  following  verses,  but  which  John,  in  the  early  chapters  of  his 
Gospel,  portrays  carefully  for  special  reasons.  Even  in  John's  life- 
time, his  disciples  would  have  him  to  be  the  Christ ;  but  he  himself 
humbly  acknowledged  'his  inferiority,  and  pointed  his  followers  to 
the  Saviour.  Against  his  own  will,  his  later  self-willed  disciples 
(the  Sabeans)  made  him  the  historical  prop  of  their  sect. 

Ver.  11. — Disclaiming  for  himself  the  dignity  of  the  Messiah, 
the  Baptist  points  to  him  to  whom  it  belongs.  He  calls  him  :  6moa) 
pov  ipxoftevog,  one  coming  after  me,  leaving  the  time  of  his  appear- 
ance undetermined.  The  Evangelist  John,  who  had  special  reason 
to  be  more  circumstantial  regarding  the  declarations  of  the  Baptist 
as  to  his  relation  to  the  Saviour  (see  on  this  point  notes  on  John  i. 
19,  if.  ;  iii.  27,  ff.),  mentions  facts,  which  prove  that  John  had  a 
deep  and  true  knowledge  of  the  Saviour  and  his  work.  Matthew 
notices  particularly  this  point  only  in  the  Baptist's  words,  that  Jesus 
possessed  a  greater  spiritual  power  (laxvP°r£P°$  Pov  e<m'v.)  He  there- 
fore represents  John's  relation  to  the  Saviour  as  that  of  a  servant  to 
his  master.  (The  vTroSr^iara  Xvaai,  or  ftaord^eiv,  to  loose  or  carry  the 
sandals,  is  put  for  menial  service  in  general.)  But  the  Baptist 

*  Compare  the  New  Testament  answer  to  the  question,  What  shall  we  do  ?  in  Acts 
ii.37. 


III.  11,  12. 

marks  especially  the  superiority  of  the  Messiah,  in  reference  to  his 
baptism.  (See  note  on  John  i.  25,  ff.)  He  contrasts  the  baptism  of 
water  (iv  vdari  flaTrri&iv)  with  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  (fi(nr- 
ri&iv  iv  -rvevfjiari  aytw  nal  Trvpi.}  We  might  feel  tempted  here  to 
join  TTvp,fire,  with  Trvevna,  spirit;  so  that  either  fire  should  appear 
as  a  concomitant  (as  if  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  would  be  accom- 
panied by  fiery  appearances,  as  on  the  day  of  Pentecost)  ;  or  irvevfw, 
spirit,  be  taken  as  qualifying  Trvpjjire,  (  =-nvp  Trvev^ariKov,  a  spirit- 
ualfire),  fire,  as  the  more  powerful  element,  being  contrasted  with 
water.  But  the  passages,  Matth.  xx.  22  ;  Luke  xii.  50,  appear  to 
me  to  favour  the  ancient  distinction  of  a  threefold  baptism  (fluminis, 
flaminis,  sanguinis.)*  In  this  the  Saviour  appears  as  the  type  of 
believers,  who,  like  himself,  if  not  outwardly,  yet  inwardly,  must  all 
pass  through  the  consummating  baptism  of  blood.  In  the  triple 
elements  of  baptism — viz.,  water,  spirit,  and  fire,  there  is  intimated 
a  gradation  in  the  development  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  in  the  ele- 
ment from  which  it  results.  While  the  lowest  stage,  baptism  with 
water,  implies  external  purification  from  sin,  and  repentance,  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  refers  to  the  inward  cleansing  in  faith  (the 
Holy  Spirit  being  conceived  of  as  the  regenerating  principle,  John 
iii.  1,  ff. ;  Acts  i.  5) ;  and  lastly,  the  baptism  of  fire  expresses  the 
consummation  and  complete  triumph  of  the  new  and  higher  life  in 
its  peculiar  nature. 

Ver.  12. — The  exhortation  concludes,  very  appropriately,  with  a 
renewed  admonition  of  the  nearness  of  the  Kpicis,  judgment  (ver.  10), 
the  execution  of  which  belonged  to  the  Messiah's  office.  The  act  of 
judging  is  here  represented  under  the  figure  of  the  winnowing  of 
chaff  and  wheat.  The  same  figure  occurs  in  Jer.  xv.  7  ;  Luke  xxii. 
31.  (Ov  iv  ry  %eipl  avrov  —  SII;E  IBS.  Tlrvov  —  vannus,  ventilabrum. 
'A.%vpov  =  yfa,  Psalm  i.  4.  On  -xvp  daftearov,  see  note  on  Mark  ix.  44.) 
In  the  concluding  verses  in  Luke  iii.  18-20,  the  Evangelist  calls 
these  addresses  of  the  second  Elijah  a  evayyshi&adai,  bringing  good 
news  (ver.  18),  inasmuch  as  they  treated  of  the  coming  of  the  Mes- 

*  De  Wette  is  altogether  wrong  in  taking  irvp  to  denote  punishment,  for  the  idea  of 
baptism  does  not  admit  of  any  reference  to  punishment.  It  is  always  subservient  to  sal- 
vation. [May  not  fire  and  spirit  point  prophetically  to  Acts  ii.  ?  When  did  the  apostles 
receive  the  Christian  baptism,  as  a  symbol  of  regeneration,  if  not  at  the  Pentecost  ?  (Acts 
i.  5.)  Then  came  in  place  of  the  inward  repentance  the  external  spirit  (as  res  saoramenti), 
and  in  place  of  water,  fire  (as  signum  sacramentale.)  And  by  this  spiritual  baptism  were 
they  prepared  to  administer  the  ordinary  Christian  baptism  (that  of  water  and  spirit.)* 
-£BL 

*  I  think  neither  of  the  above  explanations  correct.  John  is  discriminating  Christ's  office  and  work 
from  his  own  as  higher  and  more  profoundly  searching  and  spiritual.  For  this  he  makes  use  of  the  rite 
which  formed  so  prominent  a  feature  of  his  ministry.  What  spirit  and  fire  are  to  water,  that  is  Christ's 
baptism  and  general  work  to  his.  He  is  not,  I  think,  speaking  of  the  Saviour's  baptism  of  believers  par- 
ticularly, but  of  the  general  searching,  discriminating  character  of  his  work.  This  lu  "  licates  by  com- 
bining  with  spirit  the  subtle,  purifying,  powerful  element,  fire.  De  Wette's  explanatii...  embraces  a 
part  of  the  truth,  but  not  the  whole  of  it— [K. 


270  MATTHEW  III.  1$,  13. 

Biah,  and  even  of  his  presence.  (John  i.  26.)  Luke's  incidental  ob- 
servations on  the  Baptist's  imprisonment  may,  perhaps,  have  been 
occasioned  by  a  document  used  by  him,  in  which  John's  subsequent 
fortunes  were  narrated.  Luke  mentions,  by  anticipation,  in  this 
place,  what  occurred  long  after.  (See  note  on  Matth.  xiv.  1,  ff.,  for 
a  fuller  discussion.) 


§  2.  THE  BAPTISM  or  CHRIST. 

(Matth.  iii.  13-17  ;  Mark  L  9-11;  Luke  iii.  21-23;  John  i.  32-34.) 

The  fact  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  by  John  is  somewhat  surpris- 
ing, as  it  is  undeniable,  that  the  less  is  blessed  by  the  better  (Heb. 
vii.  7) ;  but  here  the  reverse  takes  place.  As  before  observed,  that 
which  specially  distinguishes  baptism  from  mere  lustrations,  is,  that 
one  party  appears  as  the  baptizer,  the  other  as  the  baptized  ;  and 
the  baptizer,  so  to  speak,  elevates  the  baptized  into  his  own  element 
of  life.  Now,  it  is  not  clear  how  the  weaker  can  raise  the  stronger 
to  a  higher  stage  of  life.*  John  himself  was  penetrated  with  a  sense 
of  the  inappropriateness  of  Christ's  being  baptized  by  him  (ver.  14), 
and  acknowledged  that  he  rather  stood  in  need  of  a  higher  baptism 
from  Jesus.  Objectively  viewed,  this  was  quite  right ;  but  by  the 
divine  dispensation,  which  assigns  the  limit  to  every  thing,  and  thus 
also  to  each  individual's  course  of  life  (without  prejudice  to  liberty, 
which  has  its  expansion  within  the  assigned  limits),  John  was  not 
called  for  the  New  Testament ;  he  formed  the  completion  of  the 
Old  ;  and,  like  Simeon  (Luke  ii.  25,  ff.,)  beheld  the  Messiah  without 
experiencing  his  regenerating  efficacy  in  himself ;  he  was  saved,  like 
the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament,  through  faith  in  the  coming  Sa- 
viour. For  though  John  beheld  Christ,  yet  redemption  was  still 
future  to  him,  since  Christ's  work  was  not  completed  till  after  the 
death  of  the  Baptist.  It  was,  therefore,  part  of  John's  humility, 
that,  taking  his  stand  purely  and  simply,  he  baptized  Jesus  ;  a  for- 
mal refusal  to  baptize  him  would  have  been  false  humility — a  want 
of  obedience  to  the  divine  will,  which  had  ordained  this  relation  be- 

*  The  essential  feature  of  baptism  should  not,  perhaps,  be  sought  so  much  in  the  re- 
lation between  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized,  as  between  the  latter  and  God,  of  whom 
the  baptizer  is  but  an  instrument.  It  is  not  the  raising  of  the  baptized  into  the  sphere  of 
the  baptizer  which  essentially  characterizes  baptism ;  but  that  he  before  God  buries  himself 
into  death  as  one  laden  with  guilt,  in  order  to  arise  again  from  death  as  a  new,  divinely  born 
man.  The  Jew  who  submitted  to  John's  baptism,  acknowledged :  "  I  have  deserved 
death ;  I  need  a  new  life."  Christ  in  his  baptism,  declared :  "  I  will,  laden  with  the  guilt 
of  humanity,  descend  into  death,  and  as  a  glorified  conqueror  will  arise  from  it."  Thua 
his  baptism  by  John  was  a  type  and  prophecy  of  the  real  baptism  of  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, and  forms  the  real  connecting  link  between  John's  baptism  and  Christian  baptism 
(Matth.  xxviii.  19.)  Such  is  the  simplest  explanation  of  Christ's  baptism. — [E. 


MATTHEW  III.  12.  271 

tween  John  and  Christ.  The  words  of  Jesus  :  O#T«  TTQKTTOV  eorlv  r^lv 
•nkrjp&Gai  ndaav  ditcaioavvrjv,  thus  it  becometh  us,  etc.  (Matth.  iii.  15), 
.  give  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  it.  The  term  dtnaioovvri,  right- 
eousness (the  meanings  of  which  will  be  treated  connectedly  in  note 
on  Rom.  iii.  21),  denotes  here  diicatov,  what  the  law  demands.  The 
words  contain,  therefore,  the  general  principle  on  which  the  Saviour 
proceeded,  and  which  John,  too,  had  to  follow  on  this  occasion — viz., 
to  observe  all  legal  ordinances  as  divine  institutions.  This  was  not, 
indeed,  the  consequence  of  any  internal  necessity  (for  which  reason 
TTpt-Trov  KGTI  is  used,  and  not  <M  or  xpsiav  t%oj),  but  a  propriety,  and  a 
propriety  in  the  highest  and  noblest  sense  ;  the  opposite  would  have 
been  a  disturbing  of  the  harmony  of  life.  As,  therefore,  Jesus  was 
in  all  things  -yevopevog  VTTO  vofiov,  subjected  to  law  (Gal.  iv.  4),  he  must 
submit  to  John's  baptism,  thus  establishing  it  as  divine  ;  by  God's 
will  that  was  to  be  also  the  moment  of  his  being  anointed  with  the 
Spirit — his  solemn  inauguration  as  the  Messiah  King.*  The  bap- 
tism of  Jesus  stands,  therefore,  on  a  level  with  his  undergoing  cir- 
cumcision and  the  purification.  (See  note  on  Luke  ii.  21,  22.)  The 
Mediator  himself  took  part  in  the  sacrifices  and  the  other  atoning 
rites  ordained  by  (rod  in  the  temple  service,  until,  by  his  one  sacri- 
fice on  the  cross,  he  had  made  the  repetition  of  all  other  sacrifices 
superfluous.  According  to  God's  promise  (John  i.  33),  the  baptism 
with  the  /Spirit  coincided  with  John's  baptism  with  .water,  to  which 
Jesus  submitted  ;  the  former,  of  course,  could  not  come  through  the 
medium  of  John,  it  was  rather  a  sign  (o^elov,  n's*)  for  John  himself, 
by  which  he  might  infallibly  recognize  the  promised  Messiah.  By 
this  anointing  of  the  Spirit,  the  gradual  development  of  the  human 
consciousness  in  Jesus  attained  its  height,  and  that  fulness  of  power 
was  imparted  to  him  which  was  requisite  for  the  fulfilment  of  his 
office  as  a  teacher.  Even  the  pure  offspring  of  the  Spirit  needed 
the  anointing  of  the  Spirit ;  it  was  not  till  his  human  nature  (the 
V^7?)  was  strengthened  to  bear  the  plenitude  of  the  Spirit,  that  it 
was  abidingly  filled  with  power  from  above.  The  baptism,  accord- 
ingly, was  the  sublime  season,  when  the  character  of  the  Xpiarog, 
rptoB,  which  was  dormant  (as  it  were,  potentid)  in  the  gradually  de- 
veloping child  and  youth,  now  (actu)  came  forth  and  expanded  it- 
self ;  the  baptism  is  the  inauguration  of  the  Messiah,  primarily  for 
himself  and  John.f 

*  The  law  required  not  that  he  should  submit  himself  to  John's  baptism ;  but  it  did 
require  that  an  expiation  should  be  offered,  and  his  willingness  to  offer  this  was  expressed 
by  Christ  in  the  symbolical  rite  of  baptism.  The  anointing  of  the  Spirit,  attached  itself  to 
this  expression,  but  formed  no  part  of  it. — [B. 

f  Compare  the  remarkable  words  in  Justin,  dial,  cum  Tryph.  Jud.,  p.  226.  Xpiordf 
6%  el  Kal  yeyivvyTaL  KOI  ecm  TTOV,  uyvaarug  lart  KO.I  ov6£  avrof  TTU  kavrbv  lirtararat,  oi>d£ 
£%ei  fivva/iiv  rtva,  fie%ptf  uv  iWijv  'H/ltaf  xpioi)  aiirbv  KOI  fyavepov  Tract  nonjay.  Though 
the  Messiah  has  been  born  and  lives,  he  is  unknown,  and  does  not  even  know  himself,  nor  lias 


272  MATTHEW  III.  13-17. 

Ver.  13. — According  to  Mark's  account  (i.  9),  our  Saviour  ap- 
pears to  have  continued  at  Nazareth  till  the  time  of  his  public  ap- 
pearance. The  inner  life  in  him  was,  doubtless,  silently  and  secretly 
unfolding  itself.  But  when  the  hour  was  come,  which  the  Spirit 
within  gave  him  to  know  with  indubitable  certainty,*  he  came  to 
John  at  the  Jordan  (on  the  locality,  see  note  on  John  i.  28,  29),  in 
order  to  be  introduced  by  this  messenger  of  God. 

Ver.  14,  15. — The  important  conversation  between  Jesus  and 
John,  before  the  baptism,  is  narrated  by  Matthew  only.  It  is  of  the 
highest  importance  for  an  understanding  of  John's  relation  to  the 
Saviour  ;  and  Matthew  gives,  even  in  this  communication,  a  proof 
of  the  importance  and  originality  of  his  peculiar  sources  of  informa- 
tion, particularly  in  the  discourses. 

Ver.  16, 17. — The  process  of  John's  baptism  of  Christ  is  not  mi- 
nutely detailed  ;  whether  the  Baptist  uttered  any  words,  or  what 
words,  over  Jesus,  is  left  unnoticed.  We  are  told  only  what  took 
place  after  the  baptism  was  over — that  is,  at  the  emersion  out  of  the 
water  (av^i)  d-rrb  rov  vdaroq).  That  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  did 
not  take  place  before  the  submersion,  perfectly  accords  with  the  sym- 
bolical character  of  the  action  (see  Eom.  vi.  1,  ff.),  which  is  not  indeed 
in  itself  applicable  to  John's  baptism,  but  which  the  Saviour,  by  his 
baptism,  typically  imparted  to  the  action.  The  one  part  of  the  action 
— the  submersion — represents  its  negative  aspect — viz.,  the  taking 
away  of  the  old  man  (Bom.  vi.  4);  the  other — the  emersion — denotes 
its  positive  aspect — viz.,  the  appearance  of  the  new  man  ;  the  com- 
munication of  the  Holy  Ghost  would  therefore  be  naturally  con- 
nected with  the  latter.  Luke  adds  (iii.  21),  that  Jesus  prayed, 
which  must  be  understood  of  being  absorbed  in  inward  devotion. 
After  the  emersion,  these  three  circumstances  constitute  the  progress 
of  the  action — the  opening  of  the  heavens,  the  descent  of  the  Spirit, 
the  utterance  of  the  voice.  But  that  all  this  did  not  pass  as  a  spec- 
tacle before  the  assembled  multitude,  but  was  seen  by  Christ  and 
John  alone,  is  clearly  implied  in  Matth.  iii.  16  (dvew^fyaav  avr&  ol 
ovpavoi),  and  in  John  i.  32.  Spiritual  eyes  are  needful  for  the  con- 
templation of  spiritual  transactions ;  he  only  who  possessed  such, 
was  in  a  condition  to  behold  the  working  of  the  Spirit.  A  vague 
and  undefined  emotion,  awakened  by  the  mighty  working  of  the 

any  power,  until  Elias  shad  come  and  anoint  him  and  make  him  known  to  all.  (See  note 
on  Matth.  xvii.  10,  ff.)  At  the  close  of  Christ's  ministry  (see  note  on  John  xii.  28),  a 
similar  public  approval  of  him.  took  place  by  a  voice  from  heaven ;  so  that  the  same  event 
forms  alike  the  commencement  and  the  close  of  his  public  life. 

*  It  is  quite  an  erroneous  notion,  that  Jesus  made  his  public  appearance  in  conse- 
quence of  an  exactly  calculated  and  carefully  formed  plan.  His  inward  life  obeyed  only 
the  direction  of  his  heavenly  Father ;  what  he  saw  him  do,  that  the  Son  also  did.  There 
was,  indeed,  at  the  same  time;  the  clearest  consciousness  of  what  he  did;  but  all  calcula- 
tion and  human  forming  of  plans  must  be  conceived  as  excluded,  because  it  trenches  upon 
Christ's  direct  oneness  of  life  with  God. 


MATTHEW  III.  16,  17.  273 

Spirit,  may  have  pervaded  the  multitude  at  the  sublime  instant, 
when  the  glory  of  heaven  descended  to  earth  ;  but  the  transaction 
itself  was  not  seen  by  them.  (Compare  the  analogous  case  in  the 
conversion  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  Acts  ix.  7.)  If  we  thus  transfer 
the  occurrence  to  the  domain  of  the  Spirit,  we  need  not  have  re- 
course either  to  the  historical  interpretation  (which  speaks  of  Jewish 
notions  of  a  brazen  vault  of  heaven,  and  birds  accidentally  directing 
their  flight  to  the  place  of  baptism),  or  to  its  mythical  explanation. 
The  Spirit — the  invisible  cause  of  all  that  is  visible — contains  in 
himself  the  ground  of  all  things  ;  the  revelation  and  bestowment 
of  himself  is  a  quality  of  his  nature.  The  opening  of  heaven — the 
region  of  the  Spirit — is,  consequently,  nothing  but  the  revealing  of 
the  world  of  spirits  to  the  spirit.  Every  revelation  is  a  rending  of 
the  heavens — a  descent  of  the  Spirit.  (Isa.  Ixiv.  1  ;  Ezek.  i.  1  :) 
Acts  vii.  55.)  Far  as  we  ought  to  be  from  viewing  the  opening 
of  the  heavens  materially,  we  should  be  just  as  far  from  con- 
sidering it  imaginary ;  it  is  a  real  operation  of  the  Spirit  for  the 
spirit.  For  the  Saviour,  this  opening  of  heaven  was  an  abiding 
one  ;  the  flow  of  his  inner  life  towards  the  eternal  home  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  stream  thence  down  to  him,  never  again  ceased. 
Gradually  during  their  intercourse  with  our  Lord,  the  disciples 
had  their  spiritual  eye  opened  to  this  relation,  as  they  saw  continu- 
ally heaven  open,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending 
upon  the  Son  of  Man.  (John  i.  52.)  The  descent  of  the  Spirit  is 
therefore  nothing  but  his  bestowment,  which  is  his  very  nature. 
As  love,  God  descends,  in  his  Spirit,  into  the  hearts  of  his  people. 
So  also  the  sound  of  the  voice  is  a  necessary  operation  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Spirit — the  author  of  language — speaks  for  the  spirit ;  his  opera- 
tion is  nothing  but  word.  What  he  speaks  the  spirit  understands 
immediately  ;  not  by  the  intervention  of  the  physical  ear,  but  by  the 
spiritual  ear — that  is  by  spiritual  susceptibility  of  spiritual  operations.* 
With  regard  to  the  comparison  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  a  dove,  the 
word  &aei,  as  if,  as,  used  by  all  the  four  Evangelists,  shews  that  it 
was  meant  to  be  regarded  only  as  a  comparison.  The  reality  of 
the  appearance  is,  indeed,  expressly  signified  (aufiariKu  eiSei,  Luke 
iii.  22) ;  but,  as  a  real  spiritual  phenomenon,  it  was  not  visible  to 
physical  eyes,  and,  consequently,  the  impression  could  only  be  de- 
scribed by  a  comparison  with  visible  things.  According  to  the 
symbolism  of  the  Bible,  certain  mental  characters  appear  expressed 

*  It  is  not  intended  by  these  remarks  to  assert,  that,  in  the  whole  transaction  there 
was  not  also  something  visible  and  audible  to  all.  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
(see  the  author's  History  of  the  Gospels,  p.  81)  mentioned  an  additional  circumstance — 
viz.,  the  visible  appearance  of  fire  at  the  baptism.  As  all  revelations  of  the  divine  take 
place  with  light  and  splendour,  the  idea  is  not  incorrect ;  only,  it  is  viewed  materially. 
Just  so  with  the  voice  (see  John  xii.  29),  there  may  have  been  something  audible 
& 
VOL.  I.— 18 


274  MATTHEW  III.  16,  IT. 

in  several  animals,  as  in  the  lion,  the  lamb,  the  eagle,  and  the  ox. 
In  this  system  of  natural  hieroglyphics,  the  dove  denotes  purity  and 
simplicity,  and  hence  the  spirit  of  purity  may  be  most  fittingly 
compared  with  the  dove.0  The  coming  of  the  Spirit  like  a  dove 
denotes,  consequently,  that  the  fulness  of  the  spirit  of  purity  was 
imparted  to  Jesus,  whereby  he  became  the  purifier  of  mankind. 
He  was  therefore  sealed,  so  to  speak,  as  the  Son  of  God  ;  on  which 
account  the  declaration  of  the  voice  from  heaven  is,  Tliis  is  my 
beloved  Son,  etc.  That  the  term  Son  of  God  refers  here  to  the 
divine  eternal  nature  of  the  Son,  is  shewn  by  John  i.  34.  In  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  the  Saviour  himself  was  consciously  perfected 
in  that  nature,  and  manifested  first  of  all  to  John.  ('A-yam/ro^ 
=  T^.  ~EvfioKeiv  KV  rivt,  =  s  n*n.  Nothing  but  his  own  image  is 
well-pleasing  to  God,  and,  consequently,  only  those  who  are  in 
Christ,  Ephes.  i.  6.)  There  are  two  other  points  in  the  account  of  the 
baptism  mentioned  exclusively  by  the  Evangelist  John  (i.  32.)  First, 
the  words  j  Trvevpa  speive  erf  avrov — i.  e.}  ffWev  err'  avrov  KCU  e/wrtve, 
the  Spirit  remained  upon  him — i.  e.,  came  upon  him  and  remained. 
In  these  words  the  Evangelist  notices,  in  the  Saviour's  case,  what 
he  usually  insists  upon  as  the  peculiar  aspect  of  the  Spirit's  opera- 
tions under  the  New  Testament.  While  in  the  Old  Testament 
mode  of  his  operation  he  reveals  himself  at  particular  moments,  he 
appears  in  the  New,  as  permanently  and  uniformly  efficient.  In 
the  life  of  Jesus  we  find  this  uniformity  of  divine  consciousness 
perfectly  exhibited  ;  while,  in  the  developments  of  life  in  Old  Tes- 
tament saints,  there  was  an  alternation  of  elevated,  and,  as  it  were, 
spiritless  seasons.  Secondly,  the  words :  OVK  yfeiv  avrov,  I  knew  him 
not  (John  i.  33),  are  remarkable.  They  appear  at  variance,  partly, 
with  the  passage  Matth.  iii.  14,  which  supposes  an  acquaintance 
between  Jesus  and  John  ;  and,  partly,  with  their  family  relations, 
it  being  scarcely  possible,  while  the  mothers  were  so  intimate,  that 
the  sons  should  be  unknown  to  each  other.  But  qdeiv,  knew,  evi- 
dently does  not  stand  opposed  to  the  supposition  that  John  knew 
Jesus  externally,  and  cherished  anticipations  of  his  exalted  destina- 
tion. But  to  gain  divine  indubitable  certainty,  that  it  was  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  that  the  hopes  of  mankind  were  to  be  fulfilled,  re- 
quired express  confirmations,  such  as  to  transcend  all  subjective 
impressions,  and  the  deceptions  to  which  they  are  liable.  Such  a 
miraculous  sign  was  appointed  him  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit, 
and  this  sign  he  had  at  the  baptism.  (John  i.  33.)f 

*  The  comparison  of  the  Spirit  with  the  dove  is  found  iu  the  Samaritan  and  Rabbini- 
cal writers  also.  In  the  tract  Chagigah,  it  is  said  on  Gen.  i.  2  ;  "Spiritus  Dei  ferebatur 
super  aqua,  ut  columba,"  The  Spirit  of  God  hovered  over  the  water,  like  a  dove.  The 
Christian  sects  probably  derived  the  comparison  from  the  New  Testament. 

f  As  John  grew  up  in  the  wilderness,  and  Jesus  in  Galilee,  they  may  not  have  been 
personally  acquainted.  A  sign  had  been  promised  to  John  by  which  he  should  recognize 


MATTHEW  III.  16,  17 ;  IV.  1.  275 

Luke  (iii.  23)  connects  with  his  account  of  the  baptism,  the 
genealogy,  in  which,  agreeably  to  the  popular  notion  (&v  &$  tvofii&ro), 
he  commences  with  Joseph,  Mary's  husband.  With  this  transition, 
Luke  connects  the  important  observation,  that  Jesus  was  thirty 
years  old  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  'ttoei,  about,  being 
added,  seems  indeed  to  make  the  date  uncertain  ;  but  as  the  age 
of  the  Levites'  entrance  on  office  was  fixed  by  Numb.  iv.  3,  47,  at 
thirty  years,  and  as  the  Saviour  invariably  adhered  to  the  existing 
ordinances  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  may  conclude  with  probability 
that  the  Saviour  was  not  less  than  thirty  years  of  age.  Yet  there 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  exceeded  the  fixed  number  ;  in  the 
Saviour's  life  all  is  disposed  according  to  number  and  measure,  and 
it  is  therefore  best  to  adhere  to  the  age  assigned.  The  only  remain- 
ing uncertainty  is,  whether  his  public  appearance  falls  at  the 
beginning  or  the  end  of  the  year.  (In  the  construction  of  the  sen- 
tence, supply  the  verb  diddoKeiv  with  dp%6fievog.  It  is  not  conform- 
able to  the  connexion  to  construe  the  participle  with  i]v,  or  &v  with 


§  3.  CHKIST'S  TEMPTATION. 

(Matth.  iv.  1-11;  Marki.  11, 12;  Luke  iv.  1-13.) 

THE  Saviour's  endowment  with  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit  is  most 
appropriately  followed  by  his  steadfastness  in  the  contest  with  the 
evil  one.  It  is  part  of  the  idea  of  the  Messiah,  that  he  is  appointed 
to  destroy  the  kingdom  of  darkness  ;  his  whole  life  on  earth,  there- 
fore, appears  as  a  conflict  with  its  prince.  The  Gospel-history, 
however,  particularizes  two  periods  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  in  which  he 
opposed  the  full  and  united  power  of  the  evil  one,  and  overcame. 
These  periods  form  the  commencement  and  the  close  of  his  public 
labours,  and  each  possesses  its  peculiar  character.  In  the  first  temp- 
tation, at  the  commencement  of  his  ministry,*  temptation  ap- 
proached the  Saviour  by  the  avenue  of  desire;  in  the  other,  at  the 
close  of  his  earthly  labours,  by  that  of  the  fear  of  suffering  and 
death.  Every  temptation  appears  in  tUe  one  or  the  other  of  these 
forms  ;  by  the  conquest  of  both  alike,  our  Lord  stands  as  the  ideal 
of  perfect  righteousness — as  victor  in  the  war  with  sin.  The  narra- 
tive before  us  of  the  temptation  of  Jesus  through  the  medium  of 

the  Messiah  (John  i.  33.)  But  when  Jesus  came  to  him  (Matth.  iii.  14)  before  the  sign, 
the  impression  of  his  majestic  appearance,  and  an  inward  voice  alike  said  to  him,  "  This 
is  he  !"  And  then  came  the  sign  as  a  sealing  witness  from  heaven. — [E. 

*  Even  in  Jewish  theology  the  conception  had  been  formed  from  the  general  idea  of 
the  Messiah,  that  he  would  have  to  be  tempted  by  Satan  just  at  the  commencement  of  his 
office.  See  ScMttgen,  Jesus  der  wahre  Messias;  aus  der  judische  Theologie  dargesteUt. 
Leipzig,  1748.  Svo.  S.  754,  ff. 


276  MATTHEW  IV.  1. 

desire,  makes  it  approach  the  Saviour  in  the  three  principal  forms 
by  which  the  world  uniformly  works — viz.,  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  the 
lust  of  the  flesh,  and  the  pride  of  life.  (1  John  ii.  16.)  This  narra- 
tive, consequently,  exhibits  the  comprehensiveness  and  sufficiency  of 
his  victory  over  sin,  and  thus  forms  a  suitable  introduction  to  the 
description  of  the  labours  of  the  Saviour,  who  was  in  all  points 
tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.  (Heb.  iv.  15.)  The  same 
temptations  of  pleasure,  which  on  this  occasion  met  Jesus  concen- 
trated, and  were  in  this  form  repelled  by  him,  followed  him  indi- 
vidually through  his  whole  earthly  ministry,  assuming  various  forms 
at  various  times.  In  like  manner,  temptations  on  the  side  of  pain 
presented  themselves  to  the  Saviour  through  his  whole  earthly  life, 
till,  at  its  close,  they  assailed  him  in  their  full  concentration. 

Our  conception  of  the  evangelical  narrative  of  the  temptation  of 
Christ  is  necessarily  qualified  by  our  views  regarding  the  doctrine 
of  the  devil,  and  of  bad  angels  in  general.  Keserving  fuller  explana- 
tions on  this  point  for  the  note  on  Matth.  viii.  28,  we  simply  remark, 
that  only  the  most  arbitrary  exegesis  can  deny  the  existence  of  evil 
spirits.  Even  the  Old  Testament  teaches,  though  for  wise  reasons 
obscurely,  that  man  did  not  produce  evil  from  himself,  but  was  ex- 
posed to  its  influence  by  the  seductions  of  a  wicked  power,  a  doc- 
trine essential  to  the  very  idea  of  redemption,  which  supposes  a 
bondage  under  a  foreign  force.  (See  Gen.  iii.  1  ;  Lev.  xv.  8  ;  Deut. 
xxxii.  17  ;  Psalm  cvi.  37  ;  Job  i.  6  ;  Isa.  liv.  16  ;  Zech.  iii.  1.)  In 
the  New  Testament,  Christ  confirms  this  doctrine,  partly  by  uni- 
versally taking  it  for  granted,  as  appears  times  without  number  in 
his  discourses,  that  there  is  a  kingdom  of  evil  in  opposition  to  the 
kingdom  of  good  (see  Matth.  xii.  26,  ff.),  and  partly  by  express  asser- 
tions respecting  it  (Matth.  xiii.  39  ;  John  viii.  44  ;  xiv.  30),  which 
admit  no  other  unprejudiced  exposition.  The  expositor,  then,  who 
feels  himself  compelled  to  include  the  existence  of  the  devil  among 
the  doctrines  taught  by  Christ  and  the  apostles,  will  be  unable  to 
sanction  explanations  of  the  temptation,  which  understand  the  term 
AidftoXog,  devil,  in  Matthew  and  Luke  (for  which  Mark  has  aaravajf) 
of  some  kind  of  human  enemies  or  tempters,  as,  in  the  idea  of 
Christ,  the  idea  of  his  contest  with  evil  in  its  centralized  form  is 
necessarily  included.  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  Bible  concerning 
Christ's  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  evil,  even  though  we  did  not 
possess  the  narrative  of  the  temptation,  would  lead  to  the  same  idea 
which  is  there  involved.  But  if  these  explanations  are  inadmissible, 
incomparably  more  so  are  those  which  regard  the  temptations  here 
recorded  as  arising  from  within  the  Saviour.  Schleiermacher  is  not 
wrong  in  saying  :  "  If  Jesus  ever  harboured  any  such  thoughts  (as 
the  tempter  suggested  to  him),  even  in  the  most  evanescent  man- 
ner, he  would  no  longer  be  Christ ;  and  this  explanation  appears  to 


MATTHEW  IV.  1.  277 

me  the  worst  neological  outrage  that  has  been  committed  against 
him."  (  Versuch  uber  den  Lucas,  S.  54.)  The  absolute  purity  of 
Jesus  admits  in  no  way  of  an  impure  thought  coming  from 
himself ;  as  the  first  Adam,  according  to  the  profound  narrative  in 
Genesis,  was  tempted  from  without,  so  was  the  second  Adam  also 
(1  Cor.  xv.  47),  only  with  this  difference,  that  the  latter  came  off 
victorious.*  Schleiermacher' s  own  view,  however,  that  the  tempta- 
tion is  merely  a  parabolical  narrative,  which  was  afterwards  mis- 
understood— which  view  Ullmann  also  (Studien,  H.  1,  S.  59,  ff.) 
approves — is  sufficiently  refuted  by  Usteri  (Studien  1832,  H.  4). 
Undoubtedly  we  possess  here  a  pure  fact,  undistorted  by  mythical  ele- 
ments (Blatter  fur  hohere  Wahrheit,  B.  v.,  S.  247,  ff.)  :  yet  still  sven 
from  the  strictly  biblical  point  of  view  it  may  be  doubted,  whether 
we  are  to  conceive  of  an  external  appearance  of  Satan  standing,  as 
it  were  corporeally,  before  Christ.  This  may  be  denied  for  various 
reasons.  In  the  first  place,  we  can  point  to  no  analogous  fact  either 
in  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New  ;f  for  the  narrative  in  Gen.  iii.  1, 
take  it  as  we  may,  cannot,  at  least,  be  called  an  appearance  of  the 
devil.  Nor  would  the  fact  be  explained  even  by  assuming  an  outward 
appearance  of  the  prince  of  darkness  ;  for,  assuming  that  Jesus  was 
physically  transported  through  the  air,  it  would  still  be  inconceiv- 
able how  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  could  be  surveyed  from  a 
mountain  .J  Besides,  the  words  which  the  tempter  uttered  out- 
wardly, must  be  conceived  to  have  been  united  with  an  inward  in- 
fluence, because,  without  this  there  would  have  been  no  temptation ; 
this  would,  therefore,  be  the  essential  point,  even  on  the  supposition 
of  an  outward  appearance.  It  is,  therefore,  doubtless  most  fitting 
to  lay  the  scene  of  the  occurrence,  as  an  internal  one,  in  the 
sphere  of  the  soul ;  we  thus  obtain  a  true  conception  of  it,  and  pre- 
serve all  its  essential  features.  The  temptation  consisted  in  this, 
that  the  soul  of  Jesus  was  exposed  to  the  full  influence  of  the  king- 
dom of  darkness.  This  kingdom  in  the  person  of  its  representative, 
first  displayed  to  the  Saviour  its  bright  side,  and  endeavoured  to 
seduce  him  from  the  narrow  path  marked  out  for  him  on  earth. 

*  The  hypothesis  started  by  Meyer  (in  Uttmann&nd  Umbreifs  Studien,  1831,  H.  2),  does 
not  differ  essentially  from  this  view.  He  supposes  that  the  temptation  was  a  dream,  and 
compares  with  it  Solomon's  dream,  1  Kings  iii.  5,  f£  For  if  those  seductive  thoughts 
could  have  arisen  in  Christ's  heart,  though  only  in  a  dream,  his  purity  would  have  been 
sullied.  But  if  any  one  chose  to  refer  the  excitement  of  the  thoughts  in  a  dream  to  a 
hostile  power,  the  opinion  would  not  indeed  be  offensive ;  but  then  there  appears  no 
reason  why  the  whole  occurrence  should  not  have  taken  place  in  a  waking  state,  as  the 
narrative  implies. 

f  But  there  was  no  moment  analogous  to  this,  no  man  analogous  to  Christ.  The 
tempter  could  not  appear  under  a  mask  to  our  Lord  as  to  Adam.  (Comp.  my  Krit.  d. 
Ev.  Gerch.  §  53.— [E. 

|  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  can  scarcely  conceive  of  a  real  temptation  to  the  Saviour 
to  display  himself  by  throwing  himself  down  before  a  multitude  that  existed  only  in 
vision.  So  also  tke  first  temptation  attaches  itself  to  a  real,  physical  hunger. — [E. 


278  MATTHEW  IV.  1. 

We  meet  with  analogous  appearances  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
well  as  the  New.  (See  Ezek.  viii.  3  ;  xi.  J.  ;  Rev.  i.  10  ;  xvii.  3.) 
And  if  we  are  disposed  to  connect,  2  Cor.  xi.  14,  "  Satan  is  trans- 
formed into  an  angel  of  light,"  with  the  temptation,  that  expression 
by  no  means  requires  us  to  imagine  an  outward  appearance  :  it  can 
be  understood  of  an  inward  revelation  of  Satan,  as  a  good  angel,  the 
more  surely  to  deceive. 

Matth.  iv.  1. — Immediately  after  the  baptism,  the  Saviour  left 
the  Jordan  (see  Luke  iv.  1),  and  withdrew  into  solitude,  to  prepare 
in  quiet  for  his  lofty  calling.  That  a  literal  wilderness  is  here  meant, 
is  seen  by  Mark  i.  13.  Tradition  refers  it  to  Quarantaria,  which  lies 
near  Jericho.  (Joseph.  Antiq.,  xvi.  1.  Bell.  Jud.,  iv.  82.)  Inas- 
much as  this  quiet  preparation,  and  the  temptation  connected  with 
it,  was  based  on  God's  plan  itself,  it  is  said  :  he  was  led  up  by  the 
Spirit,  etc.  (dvrj%d7)  VTTO  -rrvEvfrnro^  elg  TT/V  epr]^m>.)  That  this  Spirit 
was  that  good  spirit  who  filled  Jesus  at  the  baptism,  is  seen  from 
Luke  iv.  1,  in  the  words  :  'Irjaovg  -rrvKv/naro^  dyiov  Trhrjpqg  K.  r.  A.  But 
in  that  case  it  seems  inexplicable  how  we  can  speak  of  the  Saviour 
who  was  armed  with  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit,  as  being  tempted 
(Treipaodrjvai).  (The  meaning  of  the  word  is  always  one  and  the 
same  ;  it  is  modified  only  according  to  the  object  or  subject  of  temp- 
tation. Used  of  the  evil  one,  it  denotes  to  try,  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying.  In  this  sense  it  is  said  of  God,  -neipd^ei  ovdeva,  he  tempt- 
eth  no  one,  James  i.  13.  God,  on  the  contrary,  tempts  in  order  to 
purify  and  to  perfect,  Gen.  xxii.  1.  Used  of  men  in  reference  to 
God,  it  is  always  the  product  of  unbelief  and  presumption,  since  it 
involves  the  contrary  of  humble  waiting  for  indications  from  God, 
Heb.  iii.  9.)  But  we  must  include  the  possibility  of  a  fall  (like 
Adam's  posse  non  peccare)  in  the  very  idea  of  a  Saviour  ;  because, 
without  this,  no  merit  is  conceivable.*  True,  this  possibility  must 
be  viewed  as  purely  objective  ;  since  in  so  far  as  God  became  man 
in  the  person  of  Christ,  so  far  we  must  ascribe  to  him  the  impossi- 
bility of  sinning  (non  posse  peccare).  This  blending  of  the  possi- 
bility of  falling  with  the  necessity  of  a  victory  over  evil,  is  a  mystery, 
which  is  one  with  the  idea  of  the  God-man  itself.  It  is  only  by  dis- 
tinguishing between  ^v^,  soul,  and'  Trvevfw,  spirit,  that  we  can  at- 
tain to  a  clear  idea  of  the  relation.  His  liability  to  temptation  was 
attached  to  his  human  soul ;  the  necessity  of  a  victory,  to  the  ful- 
ness of  the  spirit.  By  the  former,  he  is  made  like  us,  and  set  for  a 
pattern  ;  by  the  latter,  he  is  above  all  that  is  human,  and  assists 
individuals  to  become  like  himself,  by  the  power  of  the  same  Spirit. 
In  his  last  great  temptation,  that,  viz.,  of  his  final  sufferings,  the 

*  The  consolation,  too.  that  is  afforded  to  unhappy  man,  struggling  against  sin,  in  the 
fact  that  the  Saviour  himself  tasted  the  bitterness  of  that  struggle  in  all  its  forms  (Heb. 
ii.  17,  18),  would  be  destroyed,  if  the  objective  possibility  of  Christ's  falling  were  denied. 


MATTHEW  IY.  1.  279 

Saviour  himself  announced  his  being  deserted  of  the  fulness  of  the 
divine  Spirit  (Matth.  xxvii.  46)  ;  this  abandonment,  in  which  the 
humanity  of  the  Saviour  stood  as  it  were  isolated,  affords  a  view  of 
the  nature  of  his  conflict  at  that  time.  In  the  present  case  nothing 
is  expressly  said  of  such  a  desertion  ;  but  it  must  be  presumed,  par- 
ticularly as  the  Saviour  does  not  at  once  recognize  the  tempter.  The 
outward  fasting' in  the  wilderness  was  an  emblem,  as  it  were,  of  his 
inward  forsaken  condition  ;  and  it  is  only  by  this  assumption,  that 
the  temptation  acquires  essential  significancy.  In  full  possession 
of  the  divine  Spirit,  temptation  is  inconceivable  ;  it  is  only  as  di- 
vested of  that  fulness  that  the  soul  of  Jesus  could  humanly  fight 
and  struggle.  According  to  this,  the  scene  should  be  conceived  in 
the  following  form  : — After  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  our  Lord, 
he  went,  under  the  impulse  of  that  Spirit,  into  the  wilderness,  in 
order  to  begin  his  great  work  in  the  seclusion  of  his  inner  life. 
There,  as  in  the  garden  of  G-ethsemane,  and  on  Golgotha,  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Spirit  was  withdrawn  from  him,  and  he  was  left  to  the 
power  of  darkness  (Luke  xxii.  53)  ;  pleasure,  in  its  most  seductive 
forms,  tempted  his  soul.  But,  in  perfect  innocence,  the  Saviour 
passed  through  the  conflict ;  and,  when  the  temptation  was  repelled, 
the  fulness  of  heavenly  power  returned  to  him  (Matth.  iv.  11).  If 
it  were  said,  that  John  i.  32  :  nvevna  K^sivev  ITT'  avrov,  the  Spirit 
abode  upon  Mm,  is  contradictory  to  this  view,  the  same  might  be 
said  of  Matth,  xxvii.  46,  where  such  a  state  of  spiritual  desertion 
must  certainly  be  supposed.  By  whatever  method  the  difficulty  is 
solved  in  that  case,  the  same  must  be  applied  here.  My  idea  of  this 
obscure  relation  is  this  :  In  the  Saviour  there  was  an  alternation  of 
states  ;  he  had  seasons  of  the  richest  spiritual  fulness,  and  of  deser- 
tion ;  but,  in  the  first  place,  these  states  were  not  so  variable  as  they 
are  wont  to  be  in  sinful  men  ;  and,  next,  they  did  not  penetrate  to 
the  inmost  sanctuary  of  his  being.  His  soul  itself  was  holy  and 
pure  ;  and,  from  its  being  most  intimately  pervaded  by  the  Spirit, 
was  so  entirely  a  spiritual  soul  (ipv^rj  TrvevfiariK^J,  that  even  at  the 
moments  of  complete  desertion  by  the  overflowing  fulness  of  the 
Spirit  (as  we  must  suppose  in  Matth.  xxvii.  46),  his  soul  acted  in  the 
might  of  the  divine  Spirit.  This  unalterable  repose  in  the  depths 
of  his  holy  soul — this  perfect  freedom,  in  the  inmost  seat  of  life, 
from  those  agitations  of  disquietude,  which  the  Eedeemer  bore  for 
our  good,  as  he  did  all  the  other  consequences  of  sin — are  denoted 
by  the  "  abiding  of  the  Spirit,"  which  is  contrasted  with  the  alter- 
nating conditions  of  Old  Testament  saints,  who  might  be  immedi- 
ately overpowered  by  sin  whenever  dark  hours  arrived.* 

6  There  seems  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  John's  statement  of  the  Spirit's  remaining 
upon  the  Saviour,  with  his  subsequent  withdrawal.  His  descending  and  remaining,  »'.  e., 
not  immediately  withdrawing,  is  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  his  leaving  Christ  afterwards 
for  special  reasons. — [K. 


280  MATTHEW  IV.  2-4. 

Ver.  2. — In  Christ's  fasting  for  forty  days,  there  is  evidently  a 
parallel  with  the  fasting  of  Moses  (Deut.  ix.  9,  18)  and  Elijah 
(1  Kings  xix.  8).  We  are,  therefore,  the  less  justified  in  taking 
vqoTeveiv,  fasting,  in  a  wider  sense — viz.,  "abstaining  from  ordinary 
nourishment,"  since  it  is  said  of  Moses,  that  he  ate  no  bread,  and 
drank  no  water,  which  coincides  with  Luke  iv.  2  :  "  He  did  eat  no- 
thing." The  intention  of  the  Evangelists  is  to  place  Jesus  in  com- 
parison with  the  great  prophets  of  earlier  days  (according  to  Deut. 
xviii.  15:  "A  prophet  like  unto  me,"  says  Moses,  "will  the  Lord 
thy  God  raise  up") ;  he  could  not,  therefore,  do  any  thing  less 
than  they  did.  The  number  forty  was  certainly  a  sacred  number 
with  the  Jews  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  thence  that  it  is  not  to  be 
taken  exactly  ;  but  rather  that  the  idea  entertained  by  the  Jews  of 
the  sacredness  of  certain  numbers  has  itself  a  deeper  foundation, 
which,  taken  as  a  general  proposition,  may  be  thus  expressed : — 
"According  to  divine  arrangement,  which  is  pure  harmony,  every 
development  proceeds  by  definite  measure  and  number."  The  forty 
days  of  the  temptation  forms  an  interesting  parallel  with  Israel's 
forty  years'  journey  through  the  wilderness.*  All  the  passages 
quoted  in  the  history  of  Christ's  temptation  are  taken  from  the 
narrative  of  that  journey. 

Ver.  3,  4. — The  point  of  the  first  temptation  is  justly  regarded 
as  lying  in  the  thought  of  employing  the  higher  powers  bestowed 
upon  him  for  satisfying  his  own  wants.  The  principle  here  main- 
tained, of  using  his  miraculous  powers  only  for  the  good  of  others, 
the  Saviour  followed  out  with  self-denying  love  through  his  whole 
ministry.  Jesus  repulsed  the  powerful  solicitation  of  sensual  appetite 
by  faith  in  God's  power,  with  a  reference  to  Deut.  viii.  3,  where  the 
LXX.  translate  HIST?  *s  xs'm  Vs  by  pr/f^a  iKTropevopevov  6ia  oro^aro^ 
Qeov.  In  this  passage  the  manna,  viewed  as  an  extraordinary 
heavenly  aliment  (Psalm  Ixxviii.  25),  is  contrasted  with  earthly 
means  of  subsistence,  and  just  so  Jesus  contrasts  the  earthly  apro$, 
bread,  with  the  heavenly.  According  to  the  connexion,  therefore, 
other  kinds  of  earthly  food  cannot  be  meant.  The  pfjfj-a  Qeov,  word 
of  God,  is  to  be  conceived  of  here  as  the  effectual  creative  cause  of 
all  nourishment.  As  every  thing  was  made  by  God's  word,  and  by 
the  breath  of  his  mouth  (Psalm  xxxiii.  6),  so  that  same  word  also 
preserves  all  things,  since  the  preservation  is  but  a  continued  crea- 
tion. Jesus  is  stayed  by  faith  in  this  power  of  God  ;  so  long  as  the 
Spirit  did  not  release  him  from  the  wilderness,  he  was  fed  by  the 

*  Such  parallels  are  acknowledged  by  the  advocates  of  the  mythical  character  of  the 
Gospel-history,  Straws  and  De  Wette;  but  in  such  a  way,  that  precisely  because  of  those 
parallels  they  deny  the  historical  reality,  both  of  the  typical  event  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  of  the  antitype  in  the  New.  But  in  this  way  they  are  degraded  into  mere  puerilities. 
For  a  serious  person  they  can  have  no  import,  unless  they  be  founded  on  real  transactions, 
by  which  God  speaks  to  men  in  the  language  of  fact. 


MATTHEW  IV.  4-7.  281 

hidden  word  of  God,  which  strengthened  soul  and  body,  without  his 
providing  any  thing  for  himself  by  the  miraculous  gift  granted  to 
him.  (On  pru-ia  Qeov,  see  note  on  Matth.  iii.  2.) 

Ver.  5. — Luke  has  placed  the  second  temptation  last ;  evidently 
with  less  propriety.*  The  first  two  thoughts  the  tempter  suggests 
to  Jesus  we  can,  for  a  moment,  imagine  as  coming  from  a  good  be- 
ing ;  the  temptation  is  more  hidden,  and  Satan,  consequently,  does 
not  display  himself  as  he  is  ;  but  in  the  last  requirement  his  dark 
origin  is  openly  revealed,  so  that  it  is  properly  followed  in  Matthew's 
account  by  vnaye,  be  gone.  (' Kyia  whig  =  fc-ftrj  "py,  holy  city,  a  de- 
signation of  Jerusalem  as  the  centre  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy. 
Hrepvyiov  =  d;s,  a  wing  of  the  temple,  in  the  shape  of  a  tower,  with 
a  flat  roof.  The  conducting  him  thither  took  place  KV  -rrvevnari,  in 
Spirit,  Rev.  xvii.  3.) 

Ver.  6. — The  point  of  the  second  temptation  lies  in  the  thought 
of  parading  the  gift  of  working  miracles,  and  thus  attaching  to  him- 
self the  unreasoning  multitude  ;  this  thought,  being  clothed  in  the 
words  of  Scripture,f  is  suggested  to  our  Lord  in  a  delusive  form. 
In  this  respect  Jesus  acted  constantly  on  the  principle  here  ap- 
proved— his  miracles  always  had  reference  to  moral  and  spiritual 
ends.  The  quoting  of  the  Scripture  words  was  intended  to  excite 
his  vanity  from  the  consciousness  of  his  being  the  Son  of  God, 
through  the  pleasure  inspired  by  the  miraculous  powers  residing  in 
him.  Humble  obedience,  the  laying  aside  of  one's  own  will,  can 
alone  secure  the  victory  in  such  a  case.  The  passage  is  quoted  from 
Psalm  xci.  11,  according  to  the  LXX.,  but  in  an  abbreviated  form. 
In  the  context,  the  words  apply  to  all  the  pious,  and  represent  them 
as  under  God's  protection.  But  the  pious  part  of  mankind,  con- 
ceived as  a  whole,  has  its  representative  in  the  Messiah  as  the 
second  Adam ;  and  therefore  it  is  quite  right  to  refer  the  passage 
to  the  Messiah  ;  the  error  lies  only  in  its  application  to  cases  of  our 
own  making.  The  angels  appear  here  as  "  ministering  spirits,  sent 
forth  to  minister  for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation."  (See 
note  on  Heb.  i.  14.)  The  entire  fulness  of  the  heavenly  powers  is 
present  for  those  that  fear  God,  as  Paul  says,  "  All  things  are  yours." 
(1  Cor.  iii.  21,  22.) 

Ver.  7. — Jesus  meets  the  tempter,  who  plants  himself  on  the 
temple,  and  makes  free  use  of  the  word  of  God,  with  that  same 
Word.  His  language  expresses  (Deut.  vi.  16)  this  thought,  that 
the  perverse  application  of  a  correct  principle  is  a  tempting  of  God. 
The  words  are  quoted  according  to  the  LXX.  ('Eicneipd&iv  is  used 

*  [See  Greswelff  Dissertations  on  the  Gospels,  vol.  ii.,  p.  192,  ffi ,  second  edition.] — Tr. 
f  Concerning  the  use  of  the  words  of  Scripture  on  the  part  of  angels,  see  remarks  on 
Luke  i.  17. 


282  MATTHEW  IV.  7-9. 

in  Luke  x.  25  ;  1  Cor.  x.  9,  in  a  bad  sense  only  ;  and  not,  therefore, 
of  G-od's  temptations.) 

Ver.  8,  9.  —  This  passage,  as  already  observed,  goes  specially  to 
prove  that  the  temptation  is  to  be  conceived  as  internal.  A  view 
of  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  is  of  course  impossible  from  any 
physical  elevation  ;  even  on  the  hypothesis  of  physical  changes  of 
place,  we  must  still  have  recourse  to  a  spiritual  ecstacy.*  But  in 
his  holy  humility  and  self  abasement,  he  chose  the  cross  instead  of 
the  crown.  But  that  the  reference  is  not  to  a  dominion  over  the 
Jews  merely,  but  to  universal  monarchy,  is  evident  even  from  the 
Jewish  notion  of  a  Messiah,  which  maintained  it  to  be  one  of  his 
prerogatives  to  rule  over  all  nations.  (See  JBertholdt,  Christol.  jud., 
p.  188.)  The  idea,  rightly  conceived,  is  also  perfectly  correct  and 
true.  This  last  temptation  seems  to  turn  on  the  proud  lust  of  do- 
minion. Satan  here  manifests  himself  as  the  "  prince  of  this  world" 
(John  xii.  31  ;  xiv.  30  ;  xvi.  11),  and  as  desirous  of  making  Jesus 
his  instrument  (that  is,  of  making  Christ  Antichrist),  since  he  aims 
to  delude  him  by  the  promise  of  dominion  over  the  world,  and  by 
the  revelation  of  its  glory,  while  at  the  same  time  he  possesses  the 
power  of  arraying  its  entire  forces  against  Jesus,  in  case  he  resists 
his  seductions.  As  payment,  the  tempter  demands  worship  from 
him.  (HpooKvveiv,  as  an  outward  rite,  such  as  kneeling  or  prostra- 
tion, is  here  merely  a  symbolical  expression  of  the  inward  act,  at 
which  the  temptation  was  aimed  —  i.  e.,  acquiescing  in  Satan's 
will,  permitting  him  to  rule  in  the  soul,  and  submitting  to  become 
his  instrument.)  It  was  precisely  this  which  disclosed  to  the 
Saviour  the  dark  nature  of  the  being  that  suggested  to  him  the 
thoughts  which  he  repelled  ;  and  Jesus,  therefore,  bids  the  creature 
of  the  night  depart,  with  the  word  vna-ye,  be  gone.  —  Luke's  narrative 
contains  some  peculiar  traits.  On  occasion  of  the  view  of  the  king- 
doms of  the  earth  from  the  mountain,  he  adds  :  £v  ariynq  %povov, 
in  a  moment  of  time  (=  iv  pt-ny  bfydatyav,  1  Cor.  xv.  52),  which  is 
still  more  in  favour  of  the  interpretation  of  this  scene  as  a  spiritual 
vision  [but  which  admits  a  simple  explanation  from  the  superhuman 
power  of  Satan].  Luke  next  adds  in  his  account  of  this  tempta- 
tion the  following  words  to  what  the  devil  said  :  "for  it  has  been  de- 
livered to  me,  and  to  whomsoever  I  will  I  give  it"  (on  ipol  napadsdorcu, 
KOI  oi  tav  0e/lw,  didufu  avrf\v).  HapadedoToi,  it  has  been  delivered,  con- 
veys a  hint  worthy  of  notice,  as  opposing  the  doctrine  of  an  original 
evil  principle  ;  the  prince  of  this  world  has  received  all  from  God, 
to  whom  alone,  as  the  everlasting  •xav-oupdruQ,  almighty,  dominion 
is  due.  The  confession  of  having  received  all,  forms  the  strangest 


*  According  to  our  view,  we  avoid  the  question  altogether  whether  the  opof 
Mav  was  Tabor,  or  some  other  mountain  —  a  question  we  are  utterly  destitute  of  data  for 
answering. 


MATTHEW  IV.  9-11.  283' 

contrast  with  the  demand  of  worship.  What  the  tempter  here  says 
of  himself,  is  true  of  the  Saviour  in  the  purest  and  deepest  sense. 
(See  John  xvii.  22  ;  Kev.  xi.  15.) 

Ver.  10.— In  answer  to  this  last  temptation,  the  Saviour  put 
forward  the  first  commandment  (Deut.  vi.  13),  which  contains  all 
the  rest  in  itself.  Only  the  One,  the  Eternal,  the  True  God  of 
heaven  and  of  earth,  ought  to  be  the  object  of  worship.  Where 
the  assumption  of  this  divine  prerogative  shews  itself,  the  spirit  of 
the  devil  is  displayed.  (See  2  Thess.  ii.  4.)  Through  this  main- 
tenance of  the  honour  of  God,  not  only  this  world,  but  the  other 
also,  became  the  possession  of  Jesus  ;  to  him  all  power  in  heaven 
and  earth  was  given.  (Aarpevu  =  i?»  is  stronger  than  TrpooKvvelv; 
the  latter  is  used  also  of  subordination  to  man,  the  former  refers 
only  to  God.) 

Ver.  11. — The  temptation  of  Jesus  stands  as  one  of  those 
decisive  events,  such  as  are  met  with  in  a  lower  degree  in  common 
life  also,  and  which  determine  the  character  of  all  its  subsequent 
manifestations.  As,  after  Adam's  first  transgression,  all  subsequent 
sin  was  nothing  but  the  unfolding  of  original  sin  ;  so  this,  the 
Saviour's  first  victory,  appears  as  the  foundation  of  all  that  follow. 
The  Saviour  here  appears  standing  between  the  two  worlds  of  light 
and  darkness.  As  the  hostile  powers  fled,  heavenly  powers  sur- 
rounded him,  and  joined  in  celebrating  the  victory  of  good.*  The 
Tempter  wished  Christ  to  serve  him,  instead  of  which  the  angels 
minister  to  Jesus,  and  announce  that  he  is  king  of  the  kingdom  of 
light.  The  circumstance  mentioned  in  Mark  i.  13 :  "  he  was  among 
the  wild  beasts"  (fjv  juera  r&v  drjpiuv),  has  also,  as  Usteri  (ut.  sup.) 
strikingly  observes,  a  typical  meaning,  because  it  is  meant  to  repre- 
sent Jesus  as  the  restorer  of  Paradise.  Adam  fell  in  Paradise,  and 
made  it  a  wilderness  ;  Jesus  conquered  in  the  wilderness  and  made 
it  a  paradise,  where  the  beasts  lost  their  wildness,  and  angels  took 
up  their  abode.  But  that  the  Redeemer's  great  conflict  with  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  was  not  over  for  ever,  is  expressly  noticed  in 
Luke  iv.  13,  in  the  words  :  6  &a/3o/loc  dnKorr]  dn'  avrov  d%pi  icaipov, 
the  devil  departed  from  him  for  a  season,  which  close  the  history 
of  the  temptation. 

If,  according  to  the  view  given  above,  the  temptation  of  Jesus 
took  place  in  the  depth  of  his  inward  life  without  witnesses,  we 
must  regard  his  own  account  of  it  as  the  only  source  of  information, 
and  testimony  to  its  reality.  This,  and  similar  events,  probably 
formed  the  subject  of  Jesus'  discourses  with  his  disciples  after  the 
resurrection,  when  he  spoke  to  them  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the 

*  After  our  Lord's  second  great  temptation  in  Gethsemane,  there  appeared  to  him  an 
angel  to  strengthen  him.  Luke  xxii.  43.  "We  may  suppose  something  of  the  same  sort  in 
this  case. 


284 


MATTHEW  IV.  11. 


kingdom  of  God.  (Acts  i.  3.)  To  become  acquainted  with  the 
nature  of  that  kingdom,  it  was  needful  that  they  should  behold  it 
in  its  establishment,  and  into  that  the  temptation  afforded  the 
deepest  insight.  The  accurate  agreement  in  the  narratives  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  though  writing  quite  independently  of  each  other, 
both  as  to  the  event  itself,  and  its  place  in  the  Gospel-history,  is  an 
^eternal  testimony  to  the  «vent  not  easily  invalidated.  It  carries 
its  internal  testimony  within  itself,  and  in  the  close  connexion  in 
which  it  stands  with  the  character  and  work  of  the  Saviour. 


THIRD    PART. 
OF   CHRIST'S  WORKS  AND   DISCOURSES 

PARTICULARLY  IN  GALILEE. 
MATTH.  iv.  12 — xviii.  35  ;  MARK  L  14 — ix.  50 ;  LUKE  iv.  14 — ix.  60. 


§  1.  JESUS  APPEARS  AS  A  TEACHER. 

(Matth.  iv.  12-17 ;  Mark  i.  14,  15 ;  Luke  iv.  14,  15.) 

Ver.  12. — Were  we  not  accurately  instructed  by  the  accounts  of 
the  Evangelist  John  as  to  the  many  events  which  intervened  be- 
tween the  public  appearance  of  Jesus  and  the  imprisonment  of 
John  (see  John  iii.  24),  we  should  conclude  from  Matth.  iv.  12,  and 
Mark  i.  14,  that  the  incarceration  followed  close  upon  the  tempta- 
tion of  Jesus.  This  fact  confirms  the  view  detailed  above  (Intro- 
duction, §  7),  that  in  this  part  of  the  Gospel-history,  a  chronologi- 
cal arrangement  of  the  individual  events  is  impracticable,  since  it  is 
evidently  by  accident  only  that  a  comparison  of  John's  narrative 
enables  us  to  demonstrate,  that  the  events  thus  connected  hi  the 
narrative  are  separated  in  point  of  time.*  For  even  though  Luke 
does  not  mention  John  in  this  place  (see,  however,  Luke  iii.  19,  20), 
yet  he  begins  his  narrative  (iv.  15)  with  the  general  statement,  that 
Jesus  "  taught  in  their  synagogues,  being  glorified  of  all  •"  by  which 
this  section  is  deprived  of  its  chronological  character.  Matthew 
(iv.  23)  applies  similar  general  formulas,  and  thus  likewise  re- 
nounces beforehand  all  pretensions  to  an  exact  chronological  arrange- 
ment of  the  several  events.  What  portion  of  the  accounts  of  the 
first  three  Evangelists  caii  with  probability  be  assigned  to  the  early 
period  of  Christ's  public  ministry,  can  be  determined  only  by  the 
help  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  references  to  place  are  as  indefi- 

*  That  this  does  not  warrant  any  conclusion  unfavorable  to  Matthew  ao  an  author,  is 
shewn  by  Sie/ert,  ut.  sup.,  S.  72. 


286  MATTHEW  IV.  12-16. 

nite  as  those  to  time ;  particularly  in  Matthew.  At  the  very  beginning 
of  this  section  (iv.  12)  this  Evangelist  does  indeed  transfer  the  scene 
to  Galilee  and  Capernaum  ;  but  we  cannot  infer  thence,  that  Mat- 
thew knew  nothing  of  Christ's  extending  his  labours  beyond  the 
limits  of  Galilee,  till  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  ;  for  it  cannot 
possibly  be  demonstrated  where  the  separate  events  recorded  by 
Matthew  took  place,  since  paying  but  slight  regard  to  time  and 
place,  he  arranges  all  according  to  certain  general  features.*  Though 
it  is  probable,  therefore,  that  as  a  Galilean,  he  narrates  especially 
what  took  place  in  Galilee,  yet  his  narrative  assumes  so  general  a 
form  (see  from  ix.  35  onwards  ;  x.  1 ;  xi.  1,  2,  7  ;  xii.  19  ;  xv.  22), 
that  it  may  refer  equally  well  to  events  in  Judea  and  in  Galilee. 

Ver.  13. — After  intimating,  in  general  terms,  that  the  Saviour 
selected  Galilee  as  the  chief  scene  of  his  ministry,  Matthew  in- 
forms us  that  not  Nazareth,  the  dwelling-place  of  his  parents,  but 
Capernaum,  became  the  centre  of  his  labours.  (K<nrepvaovfi,  more 
correctly  Kafiapvaovp  =  aihs  "IBS,  vicus  consolationis.  It  lay  on  the 
lake  of  Gennesaret  [hence  called  -na^aQaXaaoia,  see  John  vi.  17],  on 
the  border  of  the  tribes  of  Zebulun  and  Naphtali,  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Bethsaida,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  Jordan.) 
There  is  no  reason  assigned  here  for  his  leaving  Nazareth  ;  but,  ac- 
cording to  Luke  iv.  16-30,  it  was  the  unbelief  of  its  inhabitants  that 
constrained  our  Lord  to  withdraw  his  blessed  influence  from  these 
ungrateful  people.  The  parallels  to  this  narrative  in  Luke  do  not 
occur  till  Matth.  xiii.  54,  if.  ;  Mark  vi.  1,  ff. ;  and  the  same  cure, 
which  Luke  places  immediately  subsequent  to  the  occurrence  at 
Nazareth,  Mark  (i.  21)  transposes  quite  to  the  commencement. 
Although  we  think  it  highly  probable,  therefore,  that  Luke  has 
placed  the  occurrence  at  Nazareth  in  a  more  correct  chronological 
order,  we  prefer  to  postpone  the  exposition  of  the  passage  till  we 
come  to  Matth.  xiii.  54,  ff.  For  we  should  not  think  ourselves  jus- 
tified in  departing  from  our  plan  of  following  Matthew  in  this 
part  of  the  Gospel-history,  unless  it  could  be  proved  (as  it  certainly 
cannot)  that  Luke  iv.  16,  ff.,  is  to  be  understood  of  a  much  earlier, 
and  Matth.  xiii.  54,  ff.,  of  a  second,  and  much  later,  visit  of  Jesus  to 
Nazareth, 

Ver.  14-16. — Even  the  choice  of  these  districts  the  Evangelist 
does  not  regard  as  accidental,  but  recognizes  in  it  the  fulfil- 
ment of  a  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (viii.  22,  ix.  1.)  The  passage  quoted 
contains  the  prediction,  that  the  light  of  the  Messiah  will  be  mani- 
fested with  the  greatest  splendour  in  the  most  despised  regions  of 
Palestine.  (Micah  v.  2  is  similar.)  Moreover,  Matthew  gives  the 
passage  abbreviated,  and  specifies  only  the  names  of  the  tribes  of 

*  For  a  moro  complete  discussion  on  this  subject,  see  the  author's  programmes  on  the 
authenticity  of  Matthew. 


MATTHEW  IV.  16,  17.  287 

Naphtali  and  Zebulun,  and  the  neighbourhood  of  the  lake  of  Genne- 
saret, which  latter  region  experienced  most  richly  the  blessing  of  our 
Lord's  presence,  and  witnessed  the  majority  of  his  miracles.  (The 
expression  6(%  daXdaarjg,  way  of  the  sea,  =  ojn  ^ :!  denotes,  undoubt- 
edly, the  western  shore  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  here  called  en,  as 
Trepav  rov  'lopddvov,  beyond  the  Jordan,  =  "H!"?^  "^?  denotes  the 
eastern  shore  of  the  same  lake.  The  two  expressions,  therefore, 
taken  together,  include  all  its  circumjacent  parts  ;  and,  according 
to  the  Gospel-history,  the  Saviour  visited  both  shores  of  the  lake  of 
Gennesaret.)  Of  the  inhabitants  of  these  northern  border  provinces, 
it  might  be  said  most  emphatically,  that  they  lived  in  spiritual  dark- 
ness ;  in  part,  because  they  were  far  distant  from  the  theocratic 
centre — Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  in  which  the  true  knowledge  of 
God,  so  far  as  it  existed  among  the  people,  was  concentred  ;  in 
part,  because  they  had  contracted  much  that  was  impure,  through 
continual  contact  with  their  heathen  neighbours.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  these  very  inhabitants  of  Galilee,  whom  the  rigid  Jews  de- 
spised as  half  heathen,  were  most  fitted  to  receive  the  new  doctrine 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  since  they  were  freed  from  their  gross  ex- 
clusiveness  by  intercourse  with  people  of  the  neighbouring  states, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  their  degraded  condition  made  their  need 
of  salvation  very  prominent.  As,  therefore,  the  sinner  (as  a  peni- 
tent) is  nearer  to  the  kingdom  of  God  than  the  righteous  (Matth.  ix. 
13),  so  our  Lord  manifested  himself  to  the  poor  Galileans  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  other  inhabitants  of  Palestine.  (On  the  opposition  of 
<t>tig  and  GKOTOS,  see  further  in  note  on  John  i.  3,  4.  ZKIO,  Oavdrov, 
shadow  of  death,  is  after  the  Hebrew  ny&x,  which  is  commonly  used 
as  synonymous  with  ^n,  darkness.  The  LXX.  derived  it  from  ^? 
and  mtt.) 

'•     T    f 

Ver.  17. — After  this  notice  of  the  locality,  Matthew  mentions 
briefly  the  matter  of  the  Saviour's  preaching.  He  confines  himself 
to  the  same  points  which  he  had  spoken  of  in  John's  preaching  (iii. 
2) — repentance,  urged  by  the  near  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  Saviour's  proclamation  was  at  first  naturally  connected  with  that 
of  John  ;  yet  the  remark  in  Mark.  i.  15,  is  certainly  not  to  be  over- 
looked, that  Tri<jTt£,  faith,  was  connected  immediately  with  perdvota,** 
repentance,  and  that,  not  merely  a  general  faith,  such  as  formed  the 

*  Schkiermacher  remarks  beautifully  in  his  Festprediglen,  ii.,  8.  93 — "When  Christ 
commands  repentance,  he  does  it  with  a  powerful  word,  to  which  the  act  is  not  lacking. 
This  word,  which  commands  repentance,  and  which,  properly  speaking,  creates  the  new 
spiritual  world,  since  every  one  comes  into  existence  there  through  repentance  alone,  is 
iust  as  powerful  and  effectual  as  the  commanding  word,  which  summoned  into  existence 
the  external  world  around  us."  Christ's  preaching  of  repentance  is,  therefore,  quite  dif- 
ferent from  John's ;  the  former  was  accompanied  by  the  Spirit,  who  creates  it :  it  is  itself 
a  Gospel ;  the  latter,  like  the  Old  Testament  in  general,  demands  without  giving.  Even 
repentance  is  a  gift  of  God. 


288  MATTHEW  IV.  17-23. 

groundwork  even  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  a  mareueiv  ev  TGJ  evay- 
yeAtw,  believing  in  the  Gospel.  (On  niorig,  see  notes  on  Matth.  viii. 
1 ;  ix.  2  ;  xiii.  58  ;  xvii.  20.)  The  evayyehiov,  good  news,  Gospel,  im- 
plies here  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  actually  present  and  represented 
in  the  living  person  of  the  Messiah,  foretold  by  the  prophets  and  so 
long  desired.  Jesus  announced  that  thus  all  that  was  ever  foretold 
and  desired  was  fulfilled  in  him,  and  that  the  new  principle  of  life 
bestowed  by  him  demands  only  to  be  received.  The  phrase  :  -6 
Katpbg  TrgTT/b/pwTtM,  the  time  is  fulfilled  (Mark  i.  15),  evidently  points 
like  Gal.  iv.  4,  to  an  established  order  of  development,  and  internal 
regularity  in  it.  The  time  of  the  Saviour's  incarnation,  as  well  as 
his  public  appearance  among  the  people,  were  necessary  epochs  fixed 
by  divine  appointment. 


§  2.  JESUS  CHOOSES  DISCIPLES. 

(Matth.  i.  18-22;  Mark  L  16-20.) 

• 

The  calling  of  the  brothers,  Peter  and  Andrew,  and  afterwards 
of  James  and  John  (of  whom  a  fuller  account  will  be  found  in  note 
on  Matth.  x.  1,  ff.),  is  left,  in  this  place,  without  either  an  explana- 
tion of  the  motives  for  it,  or  a  detail  of  the  circumstances.  John  as- 
sures us  (chap.  i.),that  these  disciples  became  known  to  Christ  imme- 
diately after  his  baptism ;  and  this  passage  refers,  therefore,  only  to 
their  being  received  to  a  more  intimate  companionship  with  the 
Saviour.  Matthew,  whom  Mark  here  follows,  makes  but  a  passing 
allusion  to  the  calling  of  the  apostles,  in  order  to  pass  immediately 
to  what  was  with  him  specially  important — the  discourses  of  Jesus. 

(On  Troika)  vfj,ag  dXielg  dvdpuirw,  see  note  on  Luke  v.  10,  where 
the  thought  stands  in  a  more  definite  connexion. — 'A^jS/tT/arpov, 
from  djui/tt/Ja/l/U),  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  signifies  a  double  net  of  considerable  size,  while  dinrvov,  denotes 
a  smaller  net,  used  for  hunting  or  fishing.  On  ddXaoaa  rfc  ra/U/Uwof, 
see  note  on  Luke  v.  1.) 


§  3.  CHRIST'S  SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT. 

(Matth.  iv.  23— viL  29.) 

The  Evangelist  first  sketches,  in  its  general  features,  the  work  of 
the  newly  appeared  Saviour — the  same  words  occur  Matth.  ix.  35 — 
in  order  afterwards  to  portray  fully  his  character  as  a  teacher.  He 
diffused  blessings  on  all  sides,  and  went  about  to  do  good  ;  like  the 
sun,  quietly  and  majestically  pursuing  his  course,  ^e  did  not  de- 


MATTHEW  IV.  23-25 ;  V.  1.  289 

mand  like  the  law,  but  poured  blessings  on  men  ;  he  shewed  by 
actions  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  come  ;  teaching  and  healing, 
restoring  soul  and  body,  were  his  great  business.  (Synagogues 
[o-waywy?7  =  n??sn  y^  are  not  mentioned  till  after  the  captivity. 
See  Joseph.  Aniiq.  xix.  6,  3,  de  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  3,  3.  In  the  time  of 
Jesus  they  were  spread  all  over  Palestine,  as  well  as  among  the  dis- 
persed Jews  [diaoiropa] ;  in  Jerusalem  there  are  said  to  have  been 
480  of  them.  Smaller  places  of  meeting  in  villages,  or  for  smaller 
congregations,  were  called  ^ooEv^ai ;  [Acts  xvi.  13.]  They  served, 
like  the  synagogues,  for  the  daily  meetings  for  prayer  ;  doctors  of 
the  law,  even  if  they  were  not  strictly  priests  or  Levites,  could  speak 
in  them. — Noaof,  disease,  and  [m^ania,  infirmity,  are  related  as  sthenic 
and  aslhenic  disorders,  while  ftdoavo^  denotes  especially  such  diseases 
as  are  accompanied  with  excruciating  pains.) 

Ver.  24. — The  fame  of  Christ's  healing  power  (the  effects  of 
which  are  not  particularly  narrated  till  viii.  1*)  spread  through  the 
whole  land  to  the  borders  of  Syria,  and  all  the  sick  people  came  to 
him  in  crowds.  ('AKOTJ  =  rwttip;  Luke  iv.  37  has  fi%o$. — Syria  de- 
notes the  regions  of  Palestine  bordering  on  Syria,  and  the  border 
districts  of  Syria  itself,  which  the  Saviour  touched  in  his  journeys. 
Mark  has  in  the  parallel  passage,  i.  28  ;  elg  Trjv  Trspi^pov  rfjg 
TaAiAamr,  into  the  region  around  Galilee.  We  shall  afterwards  speak 
particularly  of  the  different  forms  of  disease. — On  the  daipovitfiievoi, 
see  note  on  Matth.  viii.  28. — 2ekr)vid&odai  is  not  found  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament,  except  in  Matth.  xvii,  15. — Zwexeiv  =  ins,  to 
bind,  to  fetter;  the  disease  is  conceived  as  some  power  that  restrains 
the  free  action  of  the  organization.) 

Ver.  25. — People  from  all  parts  of  the  Jewish  land,  stimulated 
by  the  mighty  manifestations  of  his  healing  power,  joined  our 
Lord,  and  the  longer  to  enjoy  his  society  accompanied  him  (some 
distance)  in  his  journeys. 

(Ae^TroAtf,  Mark  v.  20  ;  vii.  31.  In  Plin.  H.  N.  V.  16,  regio 
decapolitana,  a  district  of  ten  towns,  which  cannot,  however,  be 
named  with  certainty,  on  the  further  side  of  the  Jordan,  in  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh.  See  note  on  Matth.  viii.  28.) 

Chap.  v.  ver.  1. — After  this  preliminary  description  of  the  cures 
wrought  by  Jesus,  and  the  impression  they  made  upon  the  people, 
Matthew  immediately  introduces  his  readers  to  the  long  discourse 
of  Jesus,  which,  from  the  locality  on  which  it  was  delivered,  is 
usually  called  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  But  before  we  consider 
minutely  this  first  larger  division  in  the  Gospel  by  Matthew,  we 
shall  prefix  some  general  observations.f 

*  Compare  also  the  explanations  on  the  cures  by  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  in  general, 
given  in  the  note  on  Matth.  viii.  1. 

f  This  important  section,  tho  antitype  of  the-  giving  of  the  Law  on  Mount  Sinai,  has 
VOL.  I.— 19 


290  MATTHEW  V.  1. 

The  SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT,  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  given  us 
by  Matthew,  cannot  possibly  have  formed  a  whole  when  delivered 
by  Jesus.*  For  the  connexion  of  its  sentiments  is  such  as  to  make 
it  appear  extremely  improbable  that  the  Saviour  should,  in  speaking, 
have  thus  passed  from  one  thought  to  another.  It  is  only  the  pur- 
poses of  written  composition,  and  the  special  objects  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, that  could  warrant  such  a  combination.  But  a  comparison 
of  Luke  is  decisive  in  favour  of  this  opinion.f  We  do  indeed  find 
in  that  Gospel  (vi.  17,  ff.)  a  discourse  of  Jesus,  evidently  very  nearly 
related  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  Matthew,  and  at  the  be- 
ginning and  end  apparently  identical  with  it,  but  much  shorter 
than  that  in  Matthew.  If  it  should  be  said,  Luke  gives  a  selection 
from  the  full  discourse  in  Matthew,  it  is  true,  that  in  Luke  there 
are  only  two  verses  (vi.  39,  40)  which  Matthew  has  in  a  different 
connexion  (xv.  14 ;  x.  24 ;)  and  as  these  are  both  conceived  in  a 
proverbial  form,  they  might  have  been  repeatedly  uttered.  But 
those  parts,  which  Matthew  only  has  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
are  found  in  Luke  mostly  in  an  entirely  different  connexion,  and 
that  so  definitely  conceived,  that  we  are  compelled  to  regard  them 
as  preserved  by  Luke  in  their  original  connexion.^  Add  to  this  that 
Luke's  Gospel  exhibits  an  accuracy  of  historical  combination,  which 
is  wanting  in  that  of  Matthew.  If,  therefore,  we  wish  to  maintain 
the  unity  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  we  are  driven  to  the 
hypothesis,  that  those  parts  of  it  which  stand  in  Luke  in  a  different 
and  distinctly  specified  connexion  (e.  g.,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Luke  xi. 
1,  ff.,  compared  with  Matth.  vi.  7,  ff.),  were  spoken  twice.  But  as 
this  hypothesis  will  scarcely  find  supporters  now,  there  is  no  alter- 
native left  but  to  adopt  the  opinion,  that  the  unity  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  proceeds  not  from  the  Saviour  himself,  but  from  Mat- 
thew. Matthew  attached  parts  of  kindred  discourses  to  one  actually 
delivered  by  Jesus  on  a  specific  occasion.  The  circumstances,  under 
which  Jesus  spake,  are  exactly  detailed  by  Luke.  According  to 

been  frequently  the  subject  of  special  treatises ;  particularly  by  Pott  (Helmstadt,  1789 ;) 
Ran  (Erlangen,  1 805) ;  Grosze  (Gottingen,  1819) ;  best  of  all,  by  Tholuck  (Hamburg,  1833. 
The  third  edition  appeared  in  1845).  Among  the  Fathers,  Augustine  has  left  a  separate 
work  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

*  Against  this  view  comp.  my  Kritik.  der  Ev.  Gesch.  §  69. — [E. 

f  Tholuck  has  decided  that  the  discourse  in  Matthew  is  the  original,  laying  particular 
stress  on  the  circumstance,  that  our  Lord  might  have  repeated  many  things  twice. 
Granting  this,  however,  the  place  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Matthew  cannot  but  be  pro- 
nounced less  appropriate  than  that  which  it  occupies  in  Luke.  That  which  Tholuck 
(Clark's  Biblical  Cabinet,  No.  xx.,  p.  134)  says — viz.,  that  our  Lord  may  have  repeated 
the  prayer  to  one  of  his  disciples,  according  to  Luke  xi.  1,  is  possible  indeed,  but  not 
probable. 

\  On  the  connexion  of  the  single  passages  in  Luke,  which  are  parallel  with  pas- 
sages in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  see  the  Commentary  on  Luke,  from  ix.  51,  onward. 


MATTHEW  V.  1.  291 

Luke  vi.  12,  if.,  Jesus  had  gone  upon  a  mountain*  for  the  purpose  of 
prayer.  On  the  morning  after  the  prayer,  he  completed  the  num- 
ber of  the  twelve  disciples  (see  note  on  Matth.  x.  2),  and,  descend- 
ing to  the  level  ground  (Karafiag  Korr)  im  TOTTOV  neSivov,  Luke  vi.  17), 
taught  the  people  who  pressed  upon  him.  The  circumstance  that 
Jesus,  according  to  Luke,  descended  from  the  mountain,  while,  ac- 
cording to  Matthew  (v.  1),  he  went  up  to  it,  may  be  thus  reconciled 
— either  Matthew  connects  the  previous  ascent  with  the  teaching, 
without  mentioning  the  subsequent  descent ;  or  the  pressure  of  the 
people,  eager  to  be  healed,  caused  Jesus,  after  his  descent,  to  retire 
up  the  hill,  so  as  to  be  able  thence  to  address  a  greater  multitude. 
This  appears  to  have  been  one  of  the  first  public  and  solemn  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  addressed  to  vast  multitudes.  (Hence  dvoi&g  TO 
orofid  avrov  [ver.  2],  which  Tholuck  correctly  regards  as  denoting 
the  solemn  and  silently  expected  commencement  of  the  discourse.) 
As  such,  Matthew  made  use  of  it  to  attach  to  it  all  those  parts  of 
other  discourses,  which  might  serve  to  give  a  general  view  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Gospel,  in  relation  to  the  Old  Testament. 
Neither  the  oral  discourse  of  the  Saviour,  nor  Matthew's  written 
one,  could  have  been  intended  as  an  initiatory  discourse  for  the  dis- 
ciples. Both  were  intended  as  much  for  the  multitudes  as  for  the 
disciples  (Matth.  v.  1  ;  Luke  vi.  17,  20);  but  it  was  doubtless  in- 
tended to  unfold  to  the  view  of  all  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  In  Matthew,  particularly,  the  discourse  appears  like  a  second 
giving  of  the  law,  which  is  distinguished  from  that  on  Sinai,  be- 
cause, in  the  first  place,  it  teaches  the  most  comprehensive  spiritual 
interpretation  of  the  commandments,  and,  in  the  second,  presup- 
poses perdvota,  repentance  (as  an  effect  of  the  law  of  Moses,  Rom.  iii. 
20),  and,  with  the  law,  proclaims,  at  the  same  time,  the  grace  which 
accomplishes  its  fulfilment.  This  placing  of  the  New  Testament  law- 
givingf  at  the  commencement  of  the  Messiah's  work,  is  designed  for 
the  members  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy,  who,  on  the  authority 
of  Deuteronomy  xviii.  15,  ff.,  looked  upon  the  Messiah  as  a  second 
Moses. 

In  both  Evangelists,  Matthew  as  well  as  Luke,  a  connexion  maj- 

*  On  the  situation  of  the  mountain,  it  is  impossible  to  come  to  a  definite  opinion. 
Tabor  has  been  thought  of  by  some,  probably  incorrectly.  Tradition  speaks  of  a  hill 
near  Saphet  (Bethulia)  under  the  name  "  Hill  of  the  Beatitudes,"  as  that  from  which  our 
Lord  pronounced  this  discourse. 

f  The  assertion,  that  Christ  was  not  a  lawgiver,  contains  a  truth  which  I  by  no  means 
wish  to  deny  by  my  view  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  specific  end  of  the  Saviour's 
work  was  not  to  bring  any  new  law,  but  to  deliver  from  the  yoke  of  all  law.  But  in  £0 
far  as  he  taught  us  to  view  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  spirituality,  as  it  had 
not  till  then  been  viewed,  he  reiterated,  as  it  were,  the  law  of  Sinai,  and  perfected  it. 
Moreover,  as  Son  of  God,  the  Sinaitic  law  is  his  also.  Moses  was  but  the  peairrif,  medi- 
tor,  at  its  proclamation;  and  it  was  not  simply  law  for  others,  but  for  himself  also.  See 
Schkiermacher's  beautiful  explanation  of  this  point  in  the  Festpredigten,  B.  ii.,  S.  66. 


MATTHEW  V.  1. 

• 

be  traced  in  the  discourses.  It  is,  indeed,  more  close  in  Luke,  as  he 
gives  the  discourse  in  an  abbreviated  form.0  For  as,  in  the  first 
part,  four  woes  exactly  correspond  to  the  four  beatitudes  (ver.  21- 
26),  so  again,  the  exhortations  to  pure,  disinterested  love  (ver.  27-31) 
correspond  to  the  descriptions  of  natural  interested  love,  which  does 
not  suffice  for  the  Gospel  (ver.  32-34),  and  is  followed,  by  way  of 
conclusion  (ver.  35-38),  and  with  a  reference  to  ver.  27,  by  the  re- 
newed exhortation  to  the  disciples  of  the  New  Testament  to  livo 
in  pure,  genuine  love.  The  whole,  therefore,  forms  a  delineation  of 
the  nature  of  the  Gospel,  in  contrast  with  the  strict  law ;  only, 
that  in  Matthew  the  contrast  is  drawn  more  sharply  and  at  greater 
length.  At  ver.  39,  Luke  breaks  off  the  discourse  with  the  remark, 
that  the  Saviour  continued  his  address  in  parables.  (On  7rapa/3oA^, 
eee  note  on  Matth.  xiii.  3.)  The  words  :  But  I  say  unto  you,  pro- 
bably indicate  an  abbreviation  of  the  discourse,  as  Luke  has  omitted 
here  the  more  pointed  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, furnished  by  Matthew  (v.  13-43.)  The  parabolical  parts 
are  also  incorporated  by  Matthew,  only  in  quite  a  different  order. 
We  may,  therefore,  conclude,  with  probability,  that  they  formed  an 
integral  part  of  Christ's  address.  The  arrangement  of  the  parables, 
as  given  by  Luke,  is  entirely  natural.  For  in  all  of  them  this 
thought  is  presented  to  the  disciples,  that,  so  far  as  they  desired  to 
gain  influence  in  the  world  for  the  new  higher  principles  of  life 
(before  described),  they  must  first  receive  it  entirely  into  themselves 
and  live  according  to  it.  Accordingly,  they  must  first  be  cured  of 
their  spiritual  blindness — have  the  motes  removed  out  of  their  eyes 
— themselves  bring  forth  good  fruit,  and  build  their  house  on  the 
eternal  foundation  of  God's  word  (in  opposition  to  pharisaical  human 
doctrine),  and  then  they  may  help  others.  The  only  passage  which 
does  not  seem  to  fit  in  with  this  course  of  thought,  is  ver.  40,  on 
which  see  the  remarks  on  Matth.  x.  24.  On  closer  consideration  of 
the  context,  however,  this  thought  also  appears  to  be  inserted  in  its 
appropriate  place.  The  previous  expression,  '*'  Can  the  blind  lead 
the  blind?"  (ver.  39),  as  well  as  the  subsequent  parable  of  the  mote 
(ver.  41,  ff.),  evidently  points  to  the  Pharisees,  as  exercising  a  de- 
termining influence  on  the  Old  Testament  life,  in  the  form  which  it 
had  taken  among  the  Jews  at  that  time.  For  these  Pharisees  were 
occupied  with  the  hypocritical  work  of  seeking  to  produce  in  others 
what  was  lacking  in  themselves ;  and  against  this  our  Lord  intends 
to  warn  in  his  parables.  The  thought  that  "  the  disciple  is  not 
above  his  master,"  fits  thus  very  properly  into  the  train  of  thought : 

*  I  cannot  coincide  with  Schleiermacher's  view  of  the  discourse  in  Luke  (Ueber  die 
Schriftcn  dos  Lucns,  S.  89,  ff),  who  thinks  unfavourably  of  it.  The  discourse  is,  indeed, 
abridged  (the "woes"  only  appear  to  bo  explanatory  additions,  soo  note  on  Matth.  v.  3^ 
but  still,  in  the  main,  it  is  accurately  and  connectedly  epitomized. 


MATTHEW  V.  1.  293 

"  Break  loose  from  all  attachment  to  your  old  teacher ;  the  law  and 
Pharisees  cannot  guide  you  farther  than  they  themselves  have 
reached,  and  the  perfect  scholar  is  only  equal  to  the  teacher ;  choose 
me  rather  as  your  new  teacher,  with  decision  and  earnestness  ; 
then  you  will  not  remain  hlind  leaders  of  the  blind,  but  will  walk 
in  the  light  of  the  living." 

As  in  Luke,  so  also  in  the  discourse,  as  given  by  Matthew,  a 
connexion  may  be  traced.*  For  though  we  must  suppose  that  Mat- 
thew has  connected  kindred  thoughts  uttered  by  the  Saviour  on 
other  occasions  with  those  uttered  at  this  time,  yet  out  of  them  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  him  formed  a  new  connected  whole.  In  the  be- 
ginning and  end,  Matthew's  version  agrees  perfectly  with  Luke's, 
which  circumstance  sufficiently  proves  their  identity.  Only  in  the 
fifth  chapter  Matthew  carries  out  the  contrast  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  much  more  carefully,  since  he  accurately  expounds 
the  nature  of  both  in  a  series  of  propositions.  In  this  form  the  dis- 
course appears  more  expressly  as  the  giving  of  a  new  and  more  spi- 
ritual law  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  with  the  law  grace  is  brought 
into  view,  since  the  increased  strictness  of  the  commandments  fol- 
lows only  in  the  train  of  blessings  pronounced  on  the  poor  and  the 
sorrowing.  Hence  true  repentance,  which  necessarily  includes  faith, 
is  presupposed,  in  order  to  receive  the  law  of  love.  By  means  of 
this,  really  to  receive  the  higher  principle  of  life  into  oneself,  and  to 
preserve  it,  and  thus  properly  to  conceive  of  the  relation  of  Gospel 
and  Law,  is  the  connecting  thought  between  the  beatitudes  and 
our  Lord's  new  commandments.  (See  Matth.  v.  13-20.)  Of  the 
new  commandments,  six  forms  are  specified  by  way  of  example  (ver. 
22-47)  ;  in  which,  however,  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament  was 
sufficiently  unfolded,  so  that  the  general  proposition  in,ver.  48,  "  Be 
ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  per- 
fect," might  conclude  this  comparison.  Then,  in  the  sixth  chapter, 
the  Evangelist,  with  a  reference  to  chap.  v.  20,  proceeds  further  in 
the  comparison  of  Old  and  New  Testament  piety,  viewing  the 
Pharisees  as  the  representatives  of  the  Old  Testament — impure  re- 
presentatives indeed,  but  at  that  time  exercising  a  potent  influence 
on  the  popular  religious  character.  The  depth  and  truthfulness  of 
spiritual  life  form  a  contrast  to  the  external  show  and  pretence  of 
pharisaic  piety.  The  usual  forms  in  which  such  piety  exhibited  it- 
self— viz.,  alms-giving  (ver.  2),  praying  (ver.  5),  and  fasting  (ver.  16), 
form  the  points  in  which  the  Saviour  unfolds  the  contrast  of  the 
new  with  the  old.  The  giving  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  forms  here  the 
central  point,  since  its  first  half  sets  forth  the  spirituality  of  life 
which  characterizes  tjie  subjects  of  the  new  dispensation,  and  its 

*  Sec  R.  Stisr,  in  his  "  Andeutungen"  Th.  i.,  S.  104,  £     The  connexion  is  more  mi- 
nutely considered  at  the  individual  passages- 


294  MATTHEW  V.  1,  3. 

second  half  a  state  of  penitence,  too,  as  essential  to  the  subjects  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  but  as  precisely  that  in  which  the  Pharisees 
were  deficient.  The  close  of  the  chapter  (ver.  19-34)  is  occupied 
with  a  discussion  on  the  relation  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  to 
the  necessities  of  their  life  on  earth,  particularly  food  (ver.  25)  and 
clothing  (ver.  28)  ;  and  this  concludes  the  contrast  between  the 
New  and  the  Old  Testaments,  which  prevails  through  the  whole 
discourse.  The  Pharisees,  in  their  eagerness  to  gather  earthly 
treasure  (see  Luke  xvi.  13,  14),  served  two  masters  (Matth.  vi.  24), 
and  thus  corrupted  the  singleness  of  their  spiritual  eye  (ver.  22,  23); 
instead  of  this,  childlike  faith  in  the  fatherly  love  of  God,  and  con- 
sequently an  entire  separation  from  all  care  for  earthly  things,  are 
insisted  on  as  the  marks  of  the  children  of  God  ;  and  this  places  our 
Lord's  Prayer  in  a  more  striking  light,  as  embodying  all  the  wishes 
and  cares  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom.  The  thoughts,  which  in 
the  seventh  chapter  are  connected  more  loosely,  are  gathered  up  by 
the  concluding  exhortation,  and  placed  in  connexion  with  what 
precedes.  After  the  contrast  between  the  piety  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  the  whole  is  appropriately  concluded  by  an  exhortation 
to  the  hearers,  in  every  thing  to  exemplify  the  character  of  the 
higher  life  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  first  condition  insisted 
upon  is  to  have  a  constant  regard  to  our  own  sins,  with  true  re- 
pentance, and  a  warning  is  given  against  that  regard  to  others  which 
diverts  us  from  right  personal  endeavor  (ver.  1-5)  ;  while  still,  a 
reckless  casting  of  what  is  good  before  men  is  forbidden  (ver. 
6).  With  this  negative  duty,  the  positive  one  (ver.  7-14)  is  con- 
joined of  serious  prayer  and  striving,  as  necessary  conditions  of  the 
perfecting  of  a  life  in  God.  A  demand  for  a  searching  examina- 
tion of  all  to  whose  influence  they  yield  themselves,  forms  the  close 
(ver.  15-23),  while  the  last  verses  (24-27)  present,  in  figurative 
language,  the  consequences  of  a  faithtul  application  of  the  word  of 
God,  heard  by  us,  as  well  as  of  a  careless  use  of  such  a  blessing. 

In  the  form  thus  given  by  the  Evangelist  to  the  discourse  of 
Jesus  from  the  Mount,  it  constitutes  a  magnificent  porch  by  which 
the  reader  of  the  Gospel  is  conducted  into  the  temple  of  Jesus' 
ministry.  It  may  be  said,  that  his  whole  subsequent  life,  all  his 
discourses  and  conversations,  form  a  commentary  on  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  which  contains  the  quintessence  of  all  that  is  peculiar 
to  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord. 

Ver.  3. — Matthew  opens  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  a  noble 
summary  of  the  characteristic  features  of  the  children  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  the  children  of  the  world.  True,  those  of  the  lat- 
ter are  not  expressly  mentioned,  but  they  lie,  as  opposites,  at  the 
foundation  of  the  portraiture  ;  the  blessings  pronounced  on  the  one 
class  stand  opposed  to  the  unuttered  woes  of  the  other.  Luke,  who 


MATTHEW  V.  3.  295 

has  chosen  the  second  person  as  more  appropriate  to  a  discourse 
than  the  third,  makes  this  contrast  distinctly  prominent  (vi.  24-26) ; 
but  as  he  abridges  the  number  of  the  beatitudes,  it  is  not  improba- 
ble that  he  has  expressly  enunciated  this  contrast  only  for  the  sake 
of  greater  plainness.  The  discourse  would  have  been  too  long  and 
uniform,  if  there  were  a  "  woe"  to  answer  to  each  of  Matthew's  sen- 
tences. But  the  idea  that  Matthew's  fuller  record  is  an  amplifica- 
tion of  our  Lord's  shorter  discourse,  is  refuted  by  the  peculiar  nature 
of  the  portions  found  in  Matthew  alone  ;  a  supplementary  amplifi- 
cation of  the  fundamental  thought  would  have  been  less  profound 
and  original.  Nor  does  Luke's  abridged  form  omit  any  thing  essen- 
tial ;  the  first  and  last  blessings  he  has  preserved,  and  omitted 
nothing  but  the  rich  amplification.  In  Matthew,  the  arrangement 
of  the  separate  sentences  is  such,  that  ver.  3  corresponds  with  ver. 
10,  where  the  words,  "  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  with  which 
the  discourse  commenced,  recur.  Consequently,  there  are  only 
seven  beatitudes  to  be  reckoned,  for  ver.  10-12  do  not  add  any  new 
thought ;  they  merely  form  the  transition  to  what  follows,  since 
they  characterize  the  relation  which  the  children  of  God  bear  to  the 
world,  the  description  of  their  subjective  character  being  completed. 
In  all  the  beatitudes,  the  one  thought  is  expressed,  that,  according 
\Q  God's  law  of  eternal  recompense,  he  who  here  thirsts  for  divine 
things  shall  obtain  full  satisfaction  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  he  who  is  satisfied  with  the  perishable,  shall  hereafter 
experience,  to  his  sorrow,  the  need  of  that  which  is  eternal.  There 
is,  therefore,  here  no  contrast  between  virtue  and  vice ;  even  the  Old 
Testament  punishes  crime  ;  but  the  sensible  need  of  salvation  is 
placed  in  contrast  with  the  deadness  of  the  natural  man,  who,  with- 
out a  deeper  craving  for  eternal  things,  can  find  his  rest  in  what  is 
transitory.  Over  such  a  woe  is  pronounced,  because  when  the 
perishable  things  in  which  they  rest,  shew  their  true  character,  dis- 
quietude will  thence  arise.  The  position  which  Christ  thus  takes 
up,  is  therefore  one  above  the  law  ;  this  last  is  seen  to  have  fulfilled 
its  office,  a  sense  of  the  need  of  salvation  is  awakened  (Rom.  iii.  20) 
— the  matter  is  now  to  satisfy  it.  The  only  circumstance  that  oc- 
casions surprise  is,  that  several  of  the  points  particularized  by  the 
Saviour  :  Blessed  are  the  meek,  the  merciful,  the  pure,  the  peace- 
makers, appear  to  rise  above  this  condition  of  awakened  need  of 
salvation,  inasmuch  as  they  express  an  inward  state  of  moral  excel- 
lence. But  this  feature  is  easily  accounted  for,  if  we  remember  how 
frequently,  in  the  language  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  the  germ  of 
the  new  higher  life  is  viewed  as  coincident  with  its  consummation. 
True  poverty  of  spirit,  as  the  necessary  condition  of  every  develop- 
ment of  the  higher  life,  includes  it ;  and  in  this  very  unity  Christ 
views  it  here.  Thus  understood,  the  first  statements  of  the  Sermon 


296  MATTHEW  V.  3. 

on  the  Mount  contain  a  description  of  the  character  of  God's  chil- 
dren, which  is  true  for  all  grades  of  development,  the  highest  as  well 
as  the  lowest.  For  as  in  the  lowest,  purity  of  heart  exists  in  its 
germ,  the  highest  still  maintains  poverty  of  spirit. 

The  first  word  of  instruction  with  which  the  Saviour  hreaks  silence 
is,  fiaicdpiot.  ol  TTTUXOL,  blessed  are  the  poor,  with  the  addition  of  r<3 
nvEvfjiari,  in  spirit,  which  must  be  supplied  in  Luke,  where  it  is 
wanting.0  The  term  TH-W^O?,  poor,  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  ^as, 
which  so  frequently  occurs  in  the  Psalms  with  a  kindred  meaning. 
It  comes  near  to  Tarreivog  =  VBO;  humble  (Prov.  xxix  23,  fin  Vsa),  yet 
is  not  synonymous  with  it,  because  he  who  is  endowed  with  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Divine  Spirit  may  he  called  raireivog,  humble  (Jesus  calls 
himself  so,  Matth.  xi.  29),  but  not  TTTW^O^,  poor.  The  word  denotes 
here  (as  the  hungering  and  thirsting  in  ver.  6)  the  state  of  felt  spir- 
itual need,  the  sincere  repentance  of  the  soul. — Hence  also,  irvev/w, 
spirit,  must,  by  no  means,  be  referred  to  genius,  mental  capacity 
(vovg)  (for  the  intellectual,  as  well  as  the  feeble,  must  become  poor) ; 
but  to  the  whole  higher,  yet  natural,  vital  principle  in  man.f  A 
sense  of  the  insufficiency  of  this  principle  for  attaining  true  right- 
eousness and  holiness,  and  a  desire  for  a  higher  principle  that  can 
lead  thither — i.  e.,  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  the  conditions  of  the  king- 
dom's entering  the  heart ;  it  is  even  the  presence  of  the  kingdom 
itself ;  for  the  strict  sense  of  the  present  tense  should  be  retained 
here  as  in  ver.  10,  since  true  "  poverty"  includes  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  in  its  germ,  because  it  is  the  noblest  fruit  of  preparatory 
grace  in  the  soul.  The  rich  (jchovotoi,')  form  the  contrast  (Luke  vi. 
24),  who,  filled  with  what  is  present  and  vain,  have  no  longing  for 
the  world  to  come.  ("  Ye  have  received  your  consolation,"  Matth. 
vi.  2.)  Hence  the  kingdom  is  not  the  object  of  their  desire,  and 
consequently  they  receive  it  not.  But  the  kingdom  of  God  is  here 
presented  to  us  throughout  as  purely  inward  and  spiritual ;  it  seeks 
for  nothing  dazzling— nothing  pleasing  to  the  eye  of  man  ;  on  the 

*  Strauss  takes  tho  beatitudes  in  Luke  in  quite  a  different — an  Ebionitic  sense — viz., 
that  of  outward  poverty  and  distress.  Such  an  idea  is  very  foreign  to  tho  New  Testa- 
ment According  to  its  representation,  external  poverty,  apart  from  internal,  is  of  no  value. 
But  in  so  far  as  external  wealth  is  wont  ordinarily  to  be  associated  with  a  clinging  of 
Bpirit  to  worldly  possessions,  tho  tefm  TITU^O*  may  include  a  reference  to  the  poor  of  this 
world. 

f  Uvevfia  is  not  so  used  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  The  sense  would  rather 
be  this,  "  those  who  are  poor  in  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (righteousness  etc.)" — i.  e., 
who/seZ  themselves  to  bo  poor.  But  ho  who  so  feels  himself  poor,  already  ceases  to  be 
poor.  Better  then  to  take  r<p  nvetipan,  not  as  designating  that  in  which  one  is  poor,  but  as 
dative  of  relation  and  manner.  The  -mux.oi  arc  then  the  earthly  poor  in  tho  widest  sense, 
those  whom  the  world  regards  as  unfortunate,  as  being  destitute  of  money  and  possessions, 
of  houses,  portion,  etc.  Such  poor,  if  they  are  poor  in  spirit,  i.  e.,  if  with  a  spiritual  mind 
they  render  their  poverty  in  the  goods  of  this  world,  subservient  to  tho  pursuit  of  the  eter- 
nal riches  of  heaven,  are  pronounced  happy  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  A  similar  reversal 
of  the  judgments  of  tho  world  is  discernible  in  all  tho  beatitudes. — [B. 


MATTHEW  V.  3-6.  297 

contrary,  it  stoops  to  what  is  despised  and  unworthy.  With  tho 
ideas  of  those  Jews  whose  senses  were  dazzled  with  brilliant  pictures 
of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  this  commencement  of  his  discourse  pre- 
sented a  violent  contrast ;  but  to  those  in  whom  the  law  had  fulfilled 
its  office,  and  who  were  broken-hearted,  such  language  was  balm. 
But  that  in  rendering  prominent  the  spiritual,  we  are  not  to  deny 
the  outward  features  of  the  new  kingdom,  is  manifest  from  ver.  5. 

Vcr.  4. — The  second  beatitude  merely  adds  a  subordinate  trait 
to  tha  fundamental  disposition  just  pronounced  blessed.  Mourning 
(Trevflta1),  unites  with  the  feeling  of  poverty  a  consciousness  of  suffer- 
ing, which  is  to  be  regarded  as  arising  from  guilt.  (Luke  uses  KAaieiv, 
to  tvcsj),  with  the  same  reference  ;  only  he  has  placed  those  who  hunger 
before  those  who  weep.)  Hence  "  being  comforted"  (Trapa/caAeZcrflat) 
here  involves  the  idea  of  forgiveness,  which  is  conceived  only  in  its 
beneficent  result,  expressed  in  Luke  by  yeXuv,  laugh,  used  in  a  noble, 
sacred  sense.  Wherefore  the  Messiah,  the  author  of  consolation,  is 
called  TrapaK^T/rof  =  c^?»,  comforter  (John  xiv.  16). 

Ver.  5,  6. — It  would  seem  that  ver.  6  must  be  connected  imme- 
diately with  ver.  3  and  4,  as  in  Luke,  because  this  again  employs  the 
physical  longing  after  bodily  sustenance  to  express  spiritual  appetite. 
(On  this  comparison  see  Psalm  xlii.  1 ;  Isa.  Ixv.  13 ;  Amos  viii.  11.) 
This  thought  differs  from  ver.  3,  4,  only  in  the  object  of  desire  ;  this 
latter  is  righteousness,  no  longer  regarded  as  outward,  but  the  in- 
ward New  Testament  righteousness  of  God  (dutatoovvr]  Qeov,  see  note 
on  Rom.  iii.  21).  The  insertion  of  ver.  5  is  explicable  on  the 
ground,  that  the  desire  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  is  described 
in  its  progress.  ITpadr^,  meekness,  is  to  be  viewed  as  the  first  fruit 
of  the  -evOelv,  mourning.  A  sense  of  our  own  guilt — complete  repent- 
ance— renders  us  gentle  in  judging  of  others.  He  who  has  actually 
received  forgiveness  carries  a  forgiving  principle  within.  Thereby 
not  only  is  the  kingdom  of  God  in  him,  but  he  also  will  be  in  the 
kingdom  of  God. — In  this  place  the  Future  retains  its  full  import 
because  the  K^QOVO^IV  rfjv  yi\v,  inherit  the  earth  or  land,  is  not 
synonymous  with  :  tf  flaaiheia  KOTIV  avrtiv,  theirs  is  the  kingdom, 
(ver.  3, 10).  The  phrase  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  formula  y-.s  «n; 
(Deut.  xix.  14  ;  Psalm  xxv.  13  ;  xxxvii.  9),  and  may  be  traced  to 
the  Old  Testament  view  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  as  the  earthly  object 
of  the  divine  promises.  The  possession  of  this  land  is  therefore  the 
symbol  of  all  and  every  divine  blessing.  That  possession  is  viewed 
ideally  in  Heb.  iv.  In  this  place  in  connexion  with  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  which  is  viewed  in  the  poor  as  spiritually  present,  the 
phrase  denotes  the  full  realization  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  even  in  its 
external,  manifestation.  Thus  viewed,  the  land  of  Palestine  stands 
as  a  symbol  of  the  earth  in  general,  conceived  as  restored  and  sanc- 
tified to  God.  The  Saviour  connects  participation  in  this  realized 


298  MATTHEW  V.  6-8. 

kingdom  of  God,  with  meekness,  because  that  kingdom,  being  a  fel- 
lowship of  brotherly  love  and  union,  is  opposed  to  the  disunion  pre- 
vailing in  the  world,  and  in  its  perfected  harmony  only  that  which  is 
akin  to  itself  can  find  a  place. 

Ver.  7. — In  the  following  verses  the  consummation  of  the  inward 
life,  originating  from  a  moral  craving,  appears  in  more  definite  traits. 
First,  with  respect  to  the  term  ^Ae^ovef,  merciful,  it  differs  from 
TrpoeTs',  meek  (ver.  5),  in  this,  that  while  the  latter  bear  their  brother's 
guilt  with  love,  the  former  kindly  assist  him  in  his  distress.  So  far  as 
distress  and  guilt  are  connected,  the  two  terms  are  quite  identical. 
This  declaration,  therefore,  follows  the  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness  very  appropriately ;  the  sense  of  our  own  distresses 
awakens  sympathy  for  those  of  others.  It  is,  however,  remarkable, 
that  even  to  those  who  show  mercy,  mercy  is  promised  as  something 
future  ;  while  it  would  seem,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  experience  of 
the  divine  mercy  towards  ourselves  would  first  awaken  compassion. 
The  thought  is  rendered  clear  at  once,  if  we  consider  that  the  char- 
acter of  the  merciful  must  be  taken  relatively.  Every  one  in  whose 
heart  compassionate  love  has  been  kindled  by  the  experience  of 
mercy,  still  stands  in  need  of  divine  forbearance,  because  the  life  of 
love  in  him  is,  after  all,  only  in  its  infancy,  and  is  mixed  with  all 
the  imperfections  of  the  old  man.* 

Ver.  8. — The  two  following  declarations  must  be  taken  with  the 
same  restriction :  for  absolute  inward  purity  would  necessarily  be 
one  with  the  present  seeing  of  God,  which  yet  is  here  connected  with 
purity  (KaflapoT??^),  as  something  still  future.  Kadapbg  ry  Kapdia  = 
as?  i?  (Psalm  xxiv.  4),  forms  the  contrast  to  moral  filth  (pv-apta). 
(James  i.  21.)  Purity  is  not  specially  different  from  righteousness 
(ver.  6.)  In  the  two  expressions  the  same  condition  of  the  soul  is 
viewed  in  different  relations.  But  what  is  stated  in  ver.  6,  as  de- 
sired, is  here  represented  as  (relatively)  attained  ;  and  thus  the  life 
of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  is  again  conceived  in  its  inward  pro- 
gress. Although  all  relative  purity  of  heart  is  necessarily  accom- 
panied by  an  inward  seeing  of  God,  since  nothing  but  the  presence 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  heart  can  produce  purity,  yet  that  is  not 
to  bo  compared  with  the  perfected  vision  of  the  divine  glory,  which 
is,  therefore,  here  spoken  of  as  future.  (Seeing  God,  "O-nTeadai  Oeov 
=  evfsx  •'Santo  [Psalm  xlii.  3],  involves,  of  course,  the  idea  of  the 
highest  blessedness  ;  but  is,  by  no  means,  to  be  taken  as  a  mere  figure. 
Tho  expression  involves  rather  the  capacity,  though  marred  by  sin, 
of  the  human  soul  really  to  recognise  its  eternal  source — the  highest 
good.  This  capacity  presupposes  close  relationship  to  the  divine, 
for  it  is  only  like  that  can  receive  its  like.  Wherever,  therefore,  a 
divine  nature  is  born  in  the  soul,  from  its  craving  for  the  divine,  the 

*  See  remarks  on  the  interesting  parallel  passage  in  James  ii.  13. 


MATTHEW  V.  8-12.  299 

capacity  of  knowing  God's  eternal  nature  is  revealed  ;  which  know- 
ledge, conceived  as  complete,  is  subsequent  to  our  life  on  earth.* 
On  this  point  see  notes  on  Matth.  xi.  27  ;  John  xvii.  3.) 

Ver.  9.  —  In  the  last  stage  of  moral  perfection,  the  idea  of  dyf\vi}^ 
peace,  is  put  forward.  It  is  represented  as  realized  by  the  members 
of  the  kingdom.  'ElprjvoTroiog  is  very  distinct  from  elprjvevuv.  The 
latter  signifies  one  who  maintains  peace  already  existing  ;  the 
former,  one  who  makes  it  when  wanting.  Hence,  in  the  dyr\vmo(,6q, 
peacemaker,  a  (relative)  Kadapor^g,  purity,  is  presupposed,  because 
the  element  of  strife,  sin,  must  be  banished  from  his  heart,  and  that 
of  peace  must  be  active  there,  if  his  labours  are  to  have  any  effect. 
That  the  being  a  child  of  God  is  viewed  as  connected  with  the  peace- 
maker, is  explained  by  the  fact,  that  in  the  term  Son  of  God,  is  im- 
plied the  greatest  blessing  which  can  be  promised  to  man.  For  in 
the  vloq,  Son,  the  idea  of  spiritual  relationship  appears  ;  agreeably 
with  which  the  true  Son  is  the  image  of  the  Father.  The  God  of 
peace  (2  Cor.  xiii.  11)  begets  children  of  peace,  whose  actions  are 
peace.  This  (perfected)  character  of  sonship  to  God  is  represented 
as  future,  or,  at  most,  as  present  in  its  germ.  (KaheloOat  =  elvai, 
with  the  meaning  of  "  being  essentially/'  see  note  on  Luke  i.  35.) 
The  same  thought  is  expressed  Matth.  v.  45.  This  implies,  that  all 
the  gradations  of  moral  perfection  are  to  be  viewed  in  relation  to  their 
earthly  imperfection.  The  state  of  perfection  hereafter  is  identical 
with  sonship  to  God.  Accordingly,  men  in  their  sinful  nature  do 
not  appear  as  children  of  God.  They  need  first  a  higher  principle  of 
life,  that  must  be  imparted  by  him  who  is  pre-eminently  the  Son  of 
God  —  a  principle  which  is  received  in  the  aspiration  for  the  divine 
(in  penitent  faith),  and  is  gradually  unfolded  till  it  attains  that 
point. 

Ver.  10.  —  After  completing  the  description  of  the  inward  state 
of  the  true  children  of  God,  our  Lord  passes  on  to  portray  their  re- 
lation to  the  world  of  unrighteousness  (ddmia.')  In  so  doing,  he 
connects  ver.  3  by  repeating  in  this  verse  the  words  :  "  Theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  The  righteousness  is  here  conceived  as  com- 
plete in  the  children  of  the  kingdom,  in  that  they  are  viewed  purely 
in  contrast  with  the  world. 

Ver.  11,  12.  —  These  two  verses  are  merely  an  expansion  of  the 
thought  in  ver.  10.  Under  the  reign  of  unrighteousness,  righteous- 
ness must  necessarily  suffer.  The  different  forms  of  persecution  by 
word  and  by  deed  are  then  more  particularly  specified,  f 


*  When  we  read  in  John  i.  18,  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time,"  where  the  idea 
is  implied,  "No  man  can  see  God  —  He  is  invisible  to  the  creature"  (1  Tim.  vi.  16).  This 
refers  to  the  foundation  of  the  divine  essenco  —  the  Father  God  can  be  seen  only  in  the 
Son.  See  the  fuller  discussion  in  note  on  John  i.  18. 

\  According  to  John  xvi.  4,  the  Saviour  did  not  first  speak  to  his  disciples  of  the 
persecutions  that  awaited  them.  It  is  not  improbable,  therefore,  that  the  mention  of 


300  MATTHEW  V.  11-13. 

is  persecution  by  word,  diuiteiv  by  act.  Luke  vi.  22  has  added 
dtyopi&iv,  to  separata,  to  exclude  from  ecclesiastical  and  political 
communion.  At  the  head  of  them  all  is  put  slander  [TTOVTHJVV  pi^ia 
eiTTeiv '  ifcev66iievo$] ,  such  as  the  charges  of  murder  and  licentious 
habits  brought  against  the  first  Christians.  Luke  has  given  the 
thought  somewhat  modified :  TO  ovo^w,  tig  Trovqpbv  KnfiaXXeiv  =  d<j>opi&tv, 
only  a  stronger  expression.)  But  our  Lord  adds,  as  the  peculiar 
feature  of  the  persecution,  which  is  endured  because  of  the  truth, 
that  it  is  "vexev  tyov,  for  my  sake.  By  this  weighty  expression,  the 
doctrine  of  Christian  patience  (closely  allied  to  self-denial,  which 
also  is  to  be  exercised  only  for  the  Lord's  saJce),  first  attains  its  true 
significancy.  (See  note  on  Matth.  x.  39.)  Since  Jesus  is  himself 
the  truth  and  the  righteousness,  and  that,  too,  manifested  in  a  living 
person,  pure  suffering  for  what  is  good  requires  faith  in  him  to  bo 
exercised  by  the  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Where  selfish- 
ness prevails,  there  cannot  be  such  suffering  as  bestows  happiness. 
But  where  such  suffering  is  incurred  for  the  faith's  sake,  and  is 
borne  in  faith,  it  perfects  the  inward  life,  and  awakens  the  de- 
sire for  eternity.  This  latter  point  is  very  prominent  in  ver.  12, 
since  we  are  there  called  upon  even  to  rejoice  in  opposition  to  suf- 
ferings. ('Aya/l/Uaw, .  exult  =  VA.  It  is  a  stronger  term  than  %ai- 
peiv,  rejoice.  Luke  vi.  23  uses  oniprav,  leap.}  This  joy,  with  respect 
to  ourselves,  does  not  exclude  sorrow  in  reference  to  the  persecu- 
tors. In  the  former  respect,  the  suffering  is  only  a  testimony  to 
the  believer  that  he  is  God's.  In  the  "  woe"  (vi.  26)  Luke  presents 
the  other  aspect.  The  exciting  of  human  applause  presupposes  a 
worldly  spirit.  Where  that  is  given,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  ap- 
plauded one  belongs  to  the  community  of  the  wicked,  and  of  the 
false  teachers  (i/>£t><5o7r/9o0//Taj),  just  as  the  persecuted  one  is  thereby 
numbered  with  the  company  of  persecuted  prophets.  (The  refer- 
ence to  the  prophets  gives  greater  prominence  to  that  aspect  of  the 
discourse,  which  shews  it  to  have  been  addressed  to  the  actual  discir 
pies,  ver.  1.)  The  mention  of  the  1*1066$,  reward,  ver.  12,  appears 
remarkable,  as  it  seems  to  reconduct  to  a  legal  point  of  view.  In 
the  kingdom  of  God,  the  motive  for  actions  is  not  the  reward  in 
itself.  The  term  was,  perhaps,  chosen  with  immediate  reference  to 
the  position  of  the  disciples,  as  Christ's  earlier  discourses  do  often 
still  bear  a  legal  colouring  ;  but  there  is,  too,  a  reward  for  pure  lovo 
— a  reward  which  is  pure  in  proportion  as  the  love  itself  is  ;  for  the 
reward  of  love  consists  in  being  appreciated,  and  in  moving  in  its 
own  atmosphere. 

Ver.  13.-— It  has  been  already  observed,  in  the  general  survey  ol 
the  connexion  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  according  to  Matthew, 

them  in  this  place  is  among  the  parts  taken  from  later  discourses.  Yet  they  are  found 
mentioned  as  early  as  Luke  vi.  22. 


MATTHEW  V.  1&-15.  301 

that  tho  giving  of  a  new  (stricter)  law  is  connected  with  the  beati- 
tudes, in  the  course  of  the  chapter,  by  the  supposition  of  a  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  received  in  true  repentance,  which  teaches 
us  to  observe  such  new  commands.  But  the  relation  which  the 
mention  of  the  "  salt  of  the  earth"  bears  to  what  immediately  pre- 
cedes, and  to  the  whole,  is  obscure.  The  most  natural  connexion  is 
undoubtedly  the  following  :  The  idea  of  persecution  presupposes  a 
power  of  higher  life  in  the  persecuted  disciples,  by  which  sin  feels 
itself  aroused  ;  but  this  same  power,  which  awakens  enmity  among 
the  opponents  of  what  is  good,  is  the  condition  under  which  it 
works  effectually  in  susceptible  minds.  It  must,  therefore,  be  pre- 
served and  cherished  notwithstanding  persecutions.  First  of  all 
Jesus  calls  the  disciples  aXag  rfc  y/fc,  salt  of  the  earth.  (F/7,  earth,  is 
here  =  Koopog ,  tvorld,  ver.  14,  and  denotes  mankind  generally  with  the 
additional  notion  of  being  corruptible,  and  requiring  to  be  preserved 
by  salt.)  In  the  general  system  of  natural  symbols,  which  suggested 
itself  in  all  profound  research,  salt  always  held  an  important  place  ; 
Pythagoras  regarded  it  as  the  emblem  of  the  <5iicaiov,just.  Its  use 
at  sacrifices  was  also  full  of  meaning.  (Comp.  Lev.  ii.  13.  This 
subject  is  more  fully  discussed  in  note  on  Mark  ix.  50.)  The  point 
of  comparison  between  the  disciples  and  the  salt  lies  in  the  power 
possessed  by  the  latter  of  preventing  corruption  and  imparting  life.':> 
The  intimation  that,  without  this  power,  the  salt  is  wholly  useless, 
was  ^o  excite  the  disciples  to  a  careful  preservation  of  the  sacred 
power  entrusted  to  them.  (Instead  of  pupavOy,  some  Codd.  read 
from  papaiveadai,  to  waste  azvay,  which  is  less  preferable. 
,  used  of  salt,  correponds  to  Vsn,  [Job  vi.  6],  insipidus,fatuus.-\ 
Mark  [ix.  50]  uses  avaAo^,  saltless,  insipid — instead  of  it.  Luke 
[xiv.  34]  reminds  us  of  the  practice  of  applying  salt  as  manure 
[tfoTrpitt] ;  but  savourless  salt  is  useless  even  for  that  purpose — noth- 
ing remains  for  it  but  the^tfw  /3aAA«v,  the  casting  forth — a  figure  of 
the  spiritual  destruction  of  backsliders. — On  the  parallel  passages, 
Mark  ix.  50  ;  Luke  xiv.  34,  35  ;  and  for  what  follows,  Mark  iv.  21 ; 
Luke  viii.  16,  see  those  passages  in  their  connexion.) 

Ver.  14,  15. — The  second  comparison  conveys  the  same  general 
meaning.  According  to  it  the  world  appears  as  darkness  (John  i.  5), 
which  the  children  of  the  kingdom  are  to  illuminate.  The  disciples 
form  the  rays  of  him  who  is  himself  the  light.  (John  i.  4  ;  Phil.  ii. 
15.)  In  what  follows,  the  circumstance  is  not  specified,  that  the 
illuminating  power  may  be  lost,  as  was  done  with  the  salt ;  there 
is  only  the  exhortation  to  let  the  light  shine.  But,  indirectly,  this 

*  De  Wette  compares  2  Kings  ii.  20,  according  to  which  passage,  Elisha  heals  water 
with  salt. 

f  Tho  figure  turns  on  the  fact  that  salt  produced  by  evaporation  of  sen-water,  in  hot 
countries,  by  long  exposure  to  air  and  heat,  loses  its  chloride  of  magnesia,  anil  Ls  henconot 
strong  enough  to  preserve  meat. — [E. 


302  MATTHEW  V.  15-17. 

exhortation  involves  the  same  warning  which  was  given  above  ;  for 
to  him  who  covers  his  light,  it  is  extinguished.  To  give  vividness 
to  his  exhortation  the  Saviour  makes  use  of  two  more  comparisons. 
First,  that  of  an  elevated  city,  which  strikes  the  eyes  of  all.  Thus 
divine  things  have  a  loftiness  in  themselves,  and,  where  they  reveal 
themselves,  they  are  seen,  unless  concealed  for  fear  of  persecution. 
Then  comes  the  second  comparison  of  a  Av^vo^,  lamp,  the  intention 
of  which  is  to  give  light  to  those  who  are  in  the  house  ;  this  inten- 
tion ought  not  be  frustrated.  (In  the  parallel  passages  the  same 
figure  is  employed,  only  that  in  Luke  viii.  16,  instead  of  f^odiog,  first 
vnevos ,  and  then  K^IVIJ,  are  used.  But  in  Luke  xi.  33,  we  have  KPVTCTTJ.) 

Ver.  16. — An  application  of  these  comparisons  is  made  ;  from 
which  it  is  evident,  that  light  has  reference  not  merely  to  doctrine 
and  knowledge,  but  must  be  taken  generally  as  the  inward  principle 
of  life — as  the  source  of  good  works.  (These  are  opposed  not 
merely  to  evil  works,  but  also  to  dead  works,  such  as  do  not  grow 
from  the  life  of  faith.)  As  a  mark  of  the  genuineness  of  the  good 
works,  it  is  noticed,  that  they  must  call  forth  praise,  not  for  man, 
but  for  God  ;  it  must  be  visible  in  them,  that  man  is  only  the  organ 
for  the  flowing  forth  of  divine  power  from  him  to  others. 

Ver.  17. — The  more  undeniable  it  must  have  been  to  every  one/ 
that  in  Christ  appeared  something  entirely  new  ;  and  the  more  ex- 
pressly our  Lord  himself  acknowledged  this,  and,  in  the  sequel, 
contrasts  himself  as  a  new  Lawgiver  with  the  old  lawgiver — the 
more  important  was  it  to  prevent  the  mistake  of  imagining,  that 
the  manifestation  of  what  was  new  in  him  was  detached  from  its 
historical  foundation.  Hence  Christ  here  declares  the  intimate  con- 
nexion between  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  in  a  manner  which 
must  have  excluded  all  mistake  on  the  point,  if  preconceived 
opinions  on  the  subject  had  not  been  allowed  to  exercise  an  influence 
on  the  exposition.  First  of  all,  the  Old  Testament  is  described  as 
inviolable  in  itself;  then  the  New  Testament  is  regarded  as  the 
completion  of  the  Old ;  and  lastly,  in  this  completion  the  law  is 
declared  to  be  of  divine  and  eternal  authority. 

The  words  :  p)  VOU'KJTJTE,  think  not,  intimate  a  thought  very 
likely  to  arise  on  the  part  of  the  disciples,  that  by  the  New,  the 
Old  Testament  was  abrogated.  The  Saviour  distinctly  excludes 
such  an  effect  from  the  purpose  of  his  mission  (OVK  rjWov.)  (Nd^of 
Kai  7rpo07/T<u,  law  and  prophets,  =  trs/osa  fn'in,  is  a  general  denomi- 
nation for  the  entire  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  more  fully 
still,  Luke  xxiv.  44.  But  the  writings  themselves  are  not  to  be  re- 
garded in  their  dead  external  character,  but  in  the  vital  principle, 
from  which  they  proceed,  and  which  discloses  itself  in  them.)  The 
opposition  of  KaraAvoai,  destroy,  and  rrhrjp&oai,  fulfil,  is  here  of 
greatest  importance.  Used  of  law,  Karakvu  means  "  to  do  away 


MATTHEW  V.  17-19. 


with,"  "to  repeal."  (John  x.  35.)  But  Tr^p^aai  does  not  seem 
to  be  in  contrast  with  that  meaning  ;  nvpavv  —  to  establish,  to  con- 
firm, should  rather  have  been  used.  It  is  better  therefore  to  regard 
the  figure  as  taken  from  a  building  whose  foundations  can  be  loos- 
ened, but  which  can  still  be  completed  on  them.  Accordingly,  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  foundation  on  which  the  structure  of  the  New 
Testament  is  to  be  placed,  in  order  to  complete  it.  In  this  com- 
parison the  Old  Testament  contains  the  outline  (popfaoig,  Rom.  ii. 
20*),  and  the  New  its  filling  up  ;  the  two  are  in  organic  connexion, 
like  bud  and  blossom.  The  fulfilment  is  therefore  to  be  regarded 
as  a  comprehensive  one  ;  Christ  fulfils  not  only  the  prophecies  and 
types  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  moral  law  also  he  fulfils  per- 
fectly in  himself  and  his  people. 

Ver.  18.  —  With  strong  emphasis  the  Saviour  represents  the  im- 
possibility of  destroying  (/caraAvetv)  the  law  from  its  very  nature. 
('Apijv  =  -pas,  verily,  is  always  used  in  our  Lord's  words,  to  direct 
attention  to  a  thought,  and  to  give  it  emphasis.)  The  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  God's  word,  is  eternal  and  unchangeable  (1  Peter  i.  25)  ; 
hence  it  stands  in  contrast  to  created  things.  Ovpavb$  K.CU  JTJ,  heaven 
and  earth  (Gen.  i.  1)  are  put  for  the  universe,  creation  in  general. 
While  this  latter  vanishes  altogether,  the  former  remains,  even 
in  its  apparently  unessential  parts.  ('lorra,  the  smallest  let- 
ter of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  Kepaia,  "apex,"  points,  by 
which  particular  letters,  e.  g.,  •>  and  i,  are  distinguished)  .f  More- 
over, as  the  first  ewe  «v>  until,  fixes  a  limit  to  the  universe,  so 
the  second  does  to  the  law  itself.  (In  the  phrase  £w?  dv  -ndvra 
yKVTjTdt,  scil.  rd  iv  rui  vofu*)  yeypaju/zeva,  the  yiveoQai  is  =  Trkrjpovodai,. 
See  Luke  xxi.  32.)  This  thought  involves  no  difficulty  relatively  to 
the  typical  character  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  universality  in 
which  it  is  here  laid  down,  it  must,  however,  be  applied  to  the  law 
in  all  points.  And  yet  it  would  seem  that  its  moral  features  must 
be  conceived  as  eternal,  and,  of  course,  can  have  no  limit  assigned 
to  them.  True  ;  but  in  the  world  of  perfection  the  law  will  be  done 
away,  in  so  far  as  it  will  have  become  the  inmost  life  of  all  beings  ; 
there  is  no  longer  need  of  law,  for  every  one  himself  ordains  what  is 
right.  As,  then,  there  is  no  law  for  God,  so  there  is  none  for  the 
perfected  world  ;  for,  like  God,  it  also  is  law  unto  itself. 

Ver.  19.  —  The  following  words  point,  perhaps,  to  some  particular 
occurrences  ;  as  some  of  the  disciples,  under  a  false  conception  of 

*  The  Apostle  Paul  explains  himself  in  the  same  way,  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  the  New,  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  in  particular  shews.  In  GaL 
ii.  18,  the  contrast  of  Karahveiv  and  oliiodoftelv  is  also  found.  It  is  only  in  appearance 
that  such  passages  as  Ephes.  ii.  15,  contain  a  different  view  of  the  law. 

f  In  like  manner  the  Rabbins  say  :  Si  quis  Daleth  in  Deut.  vi.  4,  mutant,  concuteret 
totum  mundum.  It  would  change  nns  into  nhN  —  the  true  God  into  an  idol.  See  Wet- 
stein  on  the  passage.  , 


304  MATTHEW  V.  19.  20. 

• 

thoir  freedom,  may  have  assailed  the  edifice  of  the  old  theocracy. 
The  passage  has,  at  any  rate,  no  reference  to  the  Jewish  doctors' 
division  of  the  law  into  great  and  small  commandments,  since  such 
a  depreciation  of  the  moral  part  (as  the  small  commandments),  and 
over-estimation  of  the  ceremonial  part  (as  the  great  commandments), 
being  false  pharisaical  doctrine,  necessarily  excluded  from  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  But  the  expressions  :  "  to  be  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  and  "not  to  enter  into  the  kingdom,"  cannot  possibly 
be  synonymous.  Our  Lord  speaks  rather  in  general  of  a  state  of 
mind,  controlled  mainly  by  Christian  principle,  but  in  which  man 
proceeds  without  proper  reverence  for  God's  word,  and  teaches  so  to 
proceed,  and  does  away  with  many  apparently  non-essential  ordi- 
nances of  the  law.  With  a,  false  liberty  like  this,  a  man  may  indeed 
be  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  his  inmost  soul,  but  he  does  not  belong 
to  it  with  all  his  powers  ;  and  for  that  reason,  too,  he  is  unfit  to 
teach.  The  terms  peyag,  great,  and  t-Ao^tfTOf,  least,  denote,  there- 
fore, different  grades  of  development  in  the  principle  of  the  Christian 
life.  The  Scriptures  often  speak  of  different  gradations  like  these, 
especially  under  the  names  of  "  children,"  "  young  men,"  and  "  men." 
(1  John  ii.  13,  14  ;  1  Peter  ii.  2  ;  Ephes.  iv.  13  ;  Col.  ii.  19.)  The 
whole  passage  is,  therefore,  a  warning  to  the  disciples  not  to  damage 
the  cause  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  their  own  progress  in  it,  by 
premature  interference.0 

Ver.  20. — In  what  follows,  Jesus  contrasts  with  the  arbitrary 
subversion  of  the  Old  Testament  the  equally  arbitrary  retention  of 
it  in  its  external  form  ;  this  was  seen  in  the  Pharisees,  and  totally 
excluded  them  from  the  kingdom.  In  itself,  indeed,  what  belongs 
to  the  Old  Testament  can  never  be  wwchristian  ;  it  is  only  ^rechris- 
tian,  and,  as  type,  includes  what  is  Christian.  It  may,  however,  be 
represented  as  unchristian  and  antichristian,  If  it  is  retained  in  its 
germ-like  form,  and  its  free  development  is  impeded.  Such  was  the 
position  of  the  Pharisees  ;  they  restricted  the  commandments  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  their  literal  meaning,  without  penetrating  to  their 
spiritual  contents.  They  had,  therefore,  a  righteousness,  but  it  was 
merely  outward  ;  they  seemed  to  keep  the  law,  but  this  appearance 
was  only  a  means  for  them  the  more  certainly  to  break  it  in  its 
most  sacred  forms.  And  as  they  had,  too,  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts  (Rom.  ii.  15),  they  desecrated  God's  sanctuary  within  them, 

*  Tho  Pharisaic  mode  of  feeling  (v.  20)  is  not  contrasted  (as  Olshausen  would  have  it) 
with  the  /.vstr,  breaking  of  the  law;  but  v.  20  rather  attaches  itself  by  the  for  (ydp)  to  v. 
19  as  an  argument.  Hence  the  Metv  v.  19,  must  represent  the  Pharisaical  mode  of  deal- 
ing with  the  law,  and  thus  (unlike  Kara  Tivetv,  v.  17)  must  denote  the  mechanical  breaking 
up  of  a  law  into  a  multitude  of  casuistical  and  merely  formal  precepts  in  opposition  to  its 
spiritual  apprehension  and  fulfilment.  This  subtle  casuistry  is  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
valueless  (shall  be  called  least,  etc.,  v.  19),  and  whoever  reposes  in  it  his  hope  of  salvation 
excludes  himself  from  the  kingdom  of  God. — [E. 


MATTHEW  V.  20,  21.  305 

and  closed  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  themselves  by  their  right- 
eousness, which  with  them  never  led  to  poverty  of  spirit.  How  the 
righteousness  of  the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  was  to  stand  related  to 
that  of  the  Pharisees,  forms  the  main  thought  in  the  grand  com- 
parative view  of  Old  and  New  Testament  laws,  to  which  the  dis- 
course now  passes  ;  only  that  Christ  gives  nothing  new  ;*  he  merely 
seizes  the  Old  Testament  in  its  deepest  living  root.  The  Pharisees, 
on  the  contrary,  confound  the  form  with  the  essence,  and  insist  on 
the  former  instead  of  the  latter. 

Yer.  21. — First  of  all,  the  precept  of  the  Mosaic  law  :  ov  Qovevoeis, 
thou  slialt  not  kill,  i.  e.,  murder,  is  discussed.  The  words  tppiBri  rot? 
dpxaioig,  it  was  said,  etc.,  are  evidently  not  meant  of  the  contem- 
poraries of  Moses  merely,  as  if  the  meaning  were,  "  the  law  was 
given  to  those  of  old."^  For  the  same  law  was  given  to  the  con- 
temporaries of  Jesus,  and  to  all  times.  This  interpretation  would 
also  involve  the  inconsistency,  that  Jesus  se£  himself  and  his  doc- 
trine (eyw  de  /Uyw  vfuv,  ver.  22)  in  opposition  to  the  Mosaic,  which 
he  had  just  (ver.  18)  described  as  eternal,  divine  truth.  For  the 
same  reasons,  it  is  not  admissible  to  supply  %povoig  with  dp%aioig,  in 
ancient  times;  the  Saviour  is  not  arguing  against  something  anti- 
quated, but  against  the  active  errors  of  the  present  time.  The 
words  £ppedri  role;  dp%aioig,  must,  therefore,  be  explained  by  the  con- 
struction of  the  passive  with  the  dative.  On  this  construction,  see 
Winer,  Gr.  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  172  (Amer.  Tr.)  ;  and  as  to 
the  Hebrew,  Gesenius'  Lehrgebaude,  p.  821 — so  that  the  meaning  is, 
"  the  ancients  have  said."  ('Ap^atot  =  tp?j?t  or  &•>?»«'?,  like  -npeo^vrepoi, 
denotes  the  Kabbinical  and  pharisaical  representatives  of  the  Old 
Testament  theocracy.)  Hence  arises  naturally  the  following  con- 
nexion. To  the  external  conception  of  the  Mosaic  commandments 
on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees,  our  Lord  opposes  the  inward  one,  and 
observes,  that  it  is  only  this  which  introduces  to  the  true,  full  mean- 
ing of  the  law.  The  whole  argument  against  the  Pharisees  is, 
therefore,  a  defence  of  Moses,  whose  law  assumed  a  form,  indeed, 
corresponding  to  the  immediate  demands  of  the  people,  in  their 
lower  state  of  culture,  but,  at  the  same  time,  did  not  prevent,  but 
promote  the  highest  and  purest  development  in  spiritual  life.  But 

*  See  1  John  ii.  1,  8,  where  what  is  new  in  the  Gospel  is  called  the  old  which  was 
from  the  beginning. 

f  Tholuck  has  again  defended  this  view,  on  the  ground  that  in  connexion  with  ^f>e6ij 
the  dative  must  denote  the  person,  and  that  dpx<uot  is  not  elsewhere  used  for  the  authors 
of  the  pharisaical  tradition.  But  the  manner  in  which  Tholuck  endeavours  to  gather  a 
reference  to  tradition  out  of  ty/ieOy  and  fjKovaare,  is  so  harsh,  that  I  prefer  the  other  ex- 
position, according  to  which  the  dative  is  taken  as  an  ablative,  because  it  suggests  much 
more  readily  a  reference  to  tradition,  which  is  absolutely  required  by  the  connexion. 
Though  upxaloi  does  not  elsewhere  occur,  as  used  of  the  authors  of  tradition,  yet  it  may 
be  so  applied  without  hesitation ;  and  Tholuck  himself  acknowledges  that  the  dative  is 
wont  to  be  used  as  an  ablative 

VOL.  I.— 20 


306  MATTHEW  V.  21,  22. 

the  pharisaical  Kabbins  checked  this  development,  by  retaining  on 
principle  the  undeveloped  form.  The  command  :  ov  Qovevoeig,  thou 
shalt  not  murder  (Exod.  xx.  13),  they  interpreted  simply  of  ordinary 
death  by  violence,  and  referred  crimes  of  that  sort  to  the  inferior 
courts.  All  shortening  of  a  neighbour's  life  by  vexation,  or  in  what- 
ever way  it  might  take  place,  they  set  aside,  as  not  included  under 
this  commandment.  The  Mosaic  command  is,  therefore,  here  con- 
nected with  the  doctrinal  interpretation  of  the  Pharisees.  From 
ver.  22,  it  is  plain  that  icpiats,  judgment,  =  tssott,  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  sanhedrim.  While  this  latter  denotes  the  last  court  of 
appeal  in  judicial  affairs  in  Jerusalem  itself  (see  observation  on 
Matth.  xxvi.  57),  Kpimg  refers  to  the  inferior  courts  in  the  provincial 
towns,  which  were  constituted  in  conformity  with  Deut.  xvi.  18,  and 
consisted  of  seven  persons. 

Ver.  22. — In  opposition  to  this  pharisaical  explanation,  by  which 
murder  was  understood  but  of  the  outward  act,  and  reckoned  among 
minor  crimes,  the  JSaviour  unfolds  the  comprehensive  meaning  of  the 
commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill ;"  which  forbids  not  only 
the  outward  act,  but  also  the  inward  disposition  of  hatred, 
Our  Lord  thus  seizes  the  act  in  its  spiritual  origin,  and  attacks 
sin  in  its  source,  which  the  Pharisees  hypocritically  spared.  Hatred 
is  moral  murder.  (1  John  iii.  15.)  The  Saviour  evidently  in- 
tends, therefore,  to  forbid  hatred  in  general,  and  the  reading,  eiKrj 
=  Kvftj  without  a  cause,  should  be  regarded  as  a  mere  correction 
(Fritzsche  on  the  passage  justly  removes  it  from  the  text),  which 
arose  from  the  idea  that  there  may  even  be  good  reason  for  anger. 
But  this  anger  ought  to  be  directed  against  the  sin  only,  not  against 
our  brother;  against  the  person  (in  whom  God's  creature  is  ever  to 
be  honoured)  there  is  no  pure  anger. — The  one  main  thought,  that  the 
fellow-subject  of  the  kingdom  admits  no  hatred  into  his  heart,  is  ex- 
pressed in  a  three-fold  gradation.  'Ogyi^eadai,  to  be  angry,  denotes, 
in  general,  the  rising  of  wrath  in  the  soul,  the  admission  of  the  mur- 
derous spirit  into  the  mind.  In  elrrelv  paicd,  saying  raca,  the  inward 
emotion  is  conceived  in  its  external  manifestation  against  the 
brother  ;  but  Jesus  does  not  go  beyond  the  mental  action — the  word 
— purposely  in  order  to  make  the  contrast  more  striking  with  the 
pharisaical  spirit,  which  laid  stress  upon  the  outward  act  only.  But 
the  words  of  the  angry  man  may  attack  human  dignity  itself :  this 
latter  is  expressed  by  eirreiv  j^wpe.  (According  to  Tholuck's  investi- 
gations, pared  is  to  be  derived  from  pfc1;  to  be  thin;  whence  p^,  nj>-n 
was  formed  and  used  among  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine  as  a  gentle 
reproach  =  "  stupid."  Mwpof  =  Vas,  is  a  stronger  term  of  reproach, 
involving  the  added  idea  of  abandoned,  impious.)  The  parallel 
gradation  in  the  punishment,  Kpimg,  awedpiov,  ytevva  -nv  $6$,  judgment, 
sanhedrim,  gehenna,  is  further  remarkable.  These  earthly  punish- 


MATTHEW  V.  22-26.  307 

ments  are  not  to  be  taken  as  designating  divine  punishment  in  its 
different  degrees,  as  if  Christ  would  oppose  to  the  law  of  the  letter 
a  new  law  of  the  letter.  He  means  only  to  set  forth  the  general 
truth  that  sin  in  its  slightest  manifestation  is  worthy  of  death.* 
Still  less  does  he  intend  to  establish  a  human  political  law.  The 
dpyi&adai,  being  angry,  cannot  in  itself  be  a  matter  on  tvhich  a  human 
tribunal  would  pass  judgment ;  for  the  reason,  that  the  fact  can 
never  be  proved.  (Teevva  =  taisrr  N-^  means,  primarily,  the  Valley 
of  Hinnom.  [2  Kings  xxiii.  10.]  The  prophets  use  mefo,  Tophet,  for 
it,  which  is  from  tpn,  a  place  spit  upon,  Jer.  vii.  31  ;  xix.  6.)  The 
place  for  bodily  filth  became  the  symbol  of  the  spiritual  slough, 
where  all  that  is  estranged  from  God  is  gathered  together.  On  the 
relation  of  Gehenna  to  Hades,  see  note  on  Luke  xvi.  23. 

Ver.  23,  24. — From  the  negative  view,  the  not  admitting  hatred 
and  the  spirit  of  murder  into  the  soul,  our  Lord  passes  on  to  the 
positive  one,  and  teaches  that  the  believer  should  quench  the  flame 
of  wrath  in  his  brother's  heart  also,  as  becomes  a  peacemaker  (ver. 
9).  In  this  the  purity  of  love  is  manifested  in  its  greatest  splendour. 
This  precept  does  not  apply  merely  to  those  cases  where  the  anger 
of  our  brother  is  excited  by  injury  on  our  part.  The  expression 
t%eiv  TI  Kara  oov,  hath  aught  against  thee,  is  intentionally  made 
general.  Even  .when  one  hates  without  cause,  we  are  to  quench  the 
flame  in  his  heart — that  is,  not  merely  be  placable,  but  also  not 
allow  our  brother  to  hate.  The  thought  of  bringing  the  expression 
of  this  pure  love  into  connexion  with  the  act  of  offering  sacrifice,  is 
specially  profound.  In  that  act  man  approaches  the  eternal  love  to 
claim  its  compassion  for  himself.  That  is  the  most  befitting  mo- 
ment for  exercising  it  on  others.  But  to  make  these  words  of  the 
Saviour  imply  a  sanction  of  sacrifices  in  the  New  Testament,  is  an 
error.  Christ  evidently  speaks  here  merely  of  the  existing  Jewish 
worship,  which  he  left  unassailed.  (On  the  supposed  difference  be- 
tween KaTahkdaab)  and  diakkdoau,  see  Tholuck.) 

Ver.  25,  26. — The  following  verses  were  doubtless  spoken  origin- 
ally in  a  totally  different  connexion,  as  is  seen  from  Luke  xii.  58,  59, 
where  the  question  is  more  fully  discussed.  But  Matthew  has  inter- 
woven the  thought  in  a  peculiar  manner  into  our  Saviour's  discourse. 
The  relation  of  a  debtor,  who  does  well  to  free  himself  from  his 
creditor  in  season,  not  to  be  cast  into  prison  by  him,  is  employed  by 
the  Evangelist  for  a  further  illustration  of  the  foregoing  principle. 
He  conceives  of  our  relation  to  an  angry  brother,  whom  we  have 

*  That  this  command  of  our  Lord's,  as  well  as  all  that  follow,  ought  not  to  be  under- 
stood literally,  is  plain  from  the  passages,  Matth.  xxiii.  It,  19;  Luke  xxiv.  25,  in  which 
Jesus  himself  calls  men  "  fools"  (tuupoi),  and  in  the  last  passage,  even  the  disciples.  This 
whole  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  necessarily  requires  a  separating  of  the  inter- 
nal and  external  church ;  in  the  latter,  the  words  of  Jesus  do  not  apply  literally,  they  are 
calculated  only  for  the  former. 


308  MATTHEW  V.  26-30. 

injured  as  a  relation  of  debt.  The  avridmoq,  adversary,  is  therefore, 
any  one  who  can  prefer  legal  claims.*  Such  an  one  the  Saviour 
advises  us  to  satisfy  by  humble,  childlike  submission,  that  the  hatred 
may  not  continue,  and  prosecute  us  to  our  ruin.  To  strengthen 
the  exhortation,  ra%v,  quickly,  is  subjoined,  with  an  admonition  of  the 
transitoriness  of  life  (666g  =  tj-^n).  That  which  is  not  reduced  to 
harmony  here  below,  continues  its  destructive  course  hereafter. — 
"ladi  evvo&v,  be  gentle,  ready  to  forgive — i.  e.,  "  offer  thou  the  hand." 
The  idea  of  the  continued  effect  of  hatred,  is  particularly  difficult, 
expressed,  as  it  is,  under  the  figure  of  being  accused  and  cast  into 
prison.  (The  Kpirrjg,  judge,  is  God,  and  the  imwerai,  officers,  his 
angels.  But  the  ^v^aicrj,  prison,  is  an  image  of  perdition.  As  the 
kingdom  of  love  forms  a  united  whole,  and  by  its  power  extends  be- 
yond life  ;  so  also  the  accusing  principle  (Kev.  xii.  10)  constitutes  a 
mighty  power,  which  demands  its  right,  till  a  reconciliation  has  been 
made.  He  who  will  not  forgive  sin  below  shall  receive  no  forgive- 
ness. (See  Matth.  xviii.  34.) 

Ver.  27,  28. — The  command  ov  poixevaeig,  thou  sJialt  not  commit 
adultery,  is  adduced  as  the  second  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
Jesus  teaches  us  to  regard  more  profoundly  than  the  pharisaical 
teachers  had  been  accustomed  to  do.  That  which  they  applied 
merely  to  the  external  act,  the  Saviour  extends  to  the  spiritual  act, 
to  the  desire  (trndvpia),  and  the  tolerating  of  it  in  the  soul.  The 
desire  in  itself  is  an  element  in  the  sinfulness  of  human  nature  in 
general.  It  is  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  actual  sin  when  resisted 
with  sincere  earnestness ;  (?)  but  the  tolerating  of  it,  and,  consequently, 
the  entering  into  it  inwardly  with  the  will  (precisely  what  Pteneiv 
Trpof  TO  imdvfj.f)oai,,  looking  in  order  to  lust,  denotes),  is  the  act  itself, 
even  though  external  circumstances,  independent  of  the  man's  will, 
hinder  its  execution. 

Ver.  29,  30. — With  these  thoughts  Matthew  connects  words 
which  were  uttered  originally  on  another  occasion,  as  the  context  of 
Matth.  xviii.  6,  ff.  ;  Mark  ix.  43,  ff.,  shews  ;  but  here  also  the  Evan- 
gelist has,  with  profound  truth,  collected  different  elements  into  a 
whole.f  With  special  propriety  is  the  assurance  that  the  command, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  teaches  inward  as  well  as  out- 
ward purity,  followed  by  the  exhortation  to  preserve  that  purity  by 
the  utmost  moral  strictness,  and  by  the  greatest  resoluteness  in  self- 
denial,  which  shuns  not  even  the  keenest  pain  and  privation.  Eyes 
and  hand  are  regarded  here  as  organs  of  sense,  which  become  the  in- 
lets of  temptation,  and,  in  turn,  the  means  by  which  sin  displays  it- 

*  On  the  principle  "Owe  no  man  any  thing,  but  to  love  one  another,"  each  is  debtor 
to  another  in  love. 

f  Considering  the  sententious  form  of  the  passage,  it  may,  however,  be  allowable  to 
•gree  with  Tholuck  in  regarding  the  words  as  original  in  both  places. 


MATTHEW  V.  30-32.  309 

self  outwardly.  To  sacrifice  these  organs,  in  themselves  useful  and 
valuable,  for  the  sake  of  sanctification — that  is,  to  abstain  from  the 
use  of  them,  or  to  limit  it,  is  the  immediate  lesson  conveyed  in 
this  thought.  (For  the  critical  rninutise,  see  note  on  Matth.  xviii. 
6,ff.) 

Ver.  31,  32. — As  the  third  example,  our  Lord  specifies  divorce. 
According  to  Deut.  xxiv.  1,  it  was  allowable  for  the  husband  to  put 
away  his  wife,  but  he  must  give  her  a  letter  of  divorcement, 
dTToardaiov  =  mirns  IBO.  (On  all  that  respects  this  subject,  and 
particularly  the  Eabbinical  explanations  of  the  Mosaic  ordinances, 
see  more  fully  in  note  on  Matth.  xix.  3,  if.)  According  to  the  ex- 
press assertion  of  Jesus  (Matth.  xix.  8),  this  regulation  was  made 
only  on  account  of  the  Jews'  hardness  of  heart,  ox^ponapdia.  The 
right  conception  of  marriage,  as  an  indissoluble  union  of  soul,  was 
embraced  even  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  the  Pharisees  did  not 
regard  this  indulgence  as  such,  and  considered  it  as  belonging  to 
the  essence  of  marriage,  that  a  husband  can  dismiss  his  wife  when 
he  pleases,  in  order  to  marry  another.  To  this  vulgar  notion  the 
Saviour  opposes  the  ideal  conception  of  marriage,  and  paints  the 
evil  consequences  of  divorce.  First,  the  divorced  woman  (d-rro/U- 
kvUKvri),  who  must  still  be  conceived  as  bound  by  the  marriage-tie, 
is  exposed  to  the  temptation  of  entering  on  another  connexion.  He 
therefore  occasions  her  to  sin,  notel  avTrjv  fj,oi%doOai.  Next,  he  brings 
another  man  into  the  danger  of  forming  an  adulterous  connexion 
with  the  divorced.  Nothing  is  said  of  his  own  sin  if  he  marries 
another,  because  that  is  self-evident ;  and  the  case  of  infidelity  is 
excepted,  because  then  the  divorce,  as  a  fact,  has  preceded  the  out- 
ward separation.  (See  note  on  Matth.  xix.  9.)  (IlapeitTb^  Adyov 
TTopvctag,  where  rropveia  denotes  "adultery"  as  well  as  "fornication;" 
and  Adyo^,  like  13?,  denotes  here  alria,  -npaj^a,  cause.}  The  thought 
is  in  itself  so  easy  of  comprehension,  that  it  admits  of  no  con- 
troversy. The  Saviour  evidently  forbids  all  divorces  except  in  the 
case  of  infidelity,  where  that  is  itself  the  separation,  and  regards 
fresh  connexions,  formed  by  the  divorced,  as  adultery.  But  the 
question  as  to  our  Lord's  intention  in  the  application  of  this  prin- 
ciple in  his  church,  is  more  difficult.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  oaths* 
(ver.  33,  ff.),  that  intention  can  only  be  gathered  from  a  general 
view  of  the  position  of  the  church.  The  external  church,  as  a 

*  Consult  the  decision  of  the  theological  faculty  at  Bonn  on  the  re-marriage  of 
divorced  parties,  reprinted  in  the  Allgemeine  Kirchenzeitung,  1836,  Nos.  148,  149,  and 
afterwards  published  separately.  In  the  main,  I  agree  with  this  decision.  The  church 
of  the  present  day,  grown  up  with  the  State,  and  filled  with  unbelieving  members,  can- 
not possibly  be  put  on  a  par  with  the  apostolical  church.  The  fathers  of  the  church  felt 
it  necessary  early  to  permit  modifications  in  practice.  (See  history  of  the  exposition  of 
the  passage  in  Iholuck's  Commentary.)  Obstinate  desertion  and  attempts  to  murder, 
early  constituted  valid  grounds  for  diTorce. 


310  MATTHEW  V.  32. 

visible  institution,  cannot  possibly  be  regarded  as  the  expressed 
ideal  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  rather  the  covering  merely,  in 
which  the  communion  of  all  the  faithful  is  enveloped,  as  the  kernel 
in  the  shell.  Hence  the  regulations  of  the  external  church  cannot 
answer  to  the  ideal  requirements  of  the  kingdom  ;  but  as  it  occu- 
pies the  Old  Testament  level  in  the  majority  of  its  members,  it 
must  conform  its  regulations  to  the  Old  Testament.  As,  then,  in 
the  Old  Testament,  God  permitted*  not  only  divorces,  but  also  the 
re-marriage  of  the  separated  parties  (see  Michaelis'  commentaries 
on  the  laws  of  Moses,  translated  by  Smith,  bk.  ii.,  and  Deut.  xxiv. 
2),  so  the  church  may  admit  modifications  of  our  Lord's  law,  as 
expressed  in  this  passage,  for  the  mass  of  its  members.  Nay,  it 
must  do  so,  because  the  application  of  the  New  Testament  princi- 
ples to  unconverted  and  unregenerate  persons  cannot  but  have 
injurious  consequences.  The  Romish  Church  is,  therefore,  wrong  in 
putting  the  words  of  Jesus  authoritatively  into  practice  in  the  visi- 
ble church,  which  has  fallen  back  under  the  dominion  of  the  law.f 
Still  strictness  should  pervade  the  legislation  of  the  church,  and  the 
effort  be  everywhere  made  to  elevate  the  members  more  and  more  to 
a  comprehension  of  the  New  Testament  spirit.^  The  case  is  quite 
different  with  those  members  of  the  church  who  also  belong  to  the 
Saviour's  spiritual  communion ;  because  these  latter  are  in  a  position 
both  to  recognize  his  requirements,  and,  by  his  power,  to  satisfy 
them.  This  command  is  in  full  force  for  them  and  among  them, 
just  like  the  command  not  to  hate,  to  give  to  every  one  that  asketh, 
etc.  But  since,  as  such,  they  are  under  the  Gospel,  and  not 
under  the  law,  there  is  no  constraint  upon  them.  To  their  Lord 
they  stand  and  fall.  (On  the  whole  question,  consult  also  the  ob- 
servations on  Matth.  xix.  3,  ff.,  and  1  Cor.  vii.  15,  16.§) 

*  God  nowhere  permitted  murder  in  the  Old  Testament,  nowhere  allowed  fornica- 
tion ;  but  he  did  expressly  allow  divorce.  Those,  therefore,  who  insist  on  Christ's  com- 
mand being  literally  applied  in  the  church,  as  it  now  exists,  should  ponder  well  what 
they  do.  The  subsequent  commands  respecting  the  cloak,  and  the  smiting  on  the  cheek, 
shew  plainly  enough  that  a  literal  fulfilment  cannot  be  intended  in  the  external  church. 
The  passage  Matth.  xix.  9,  ff ,  is  also  evidently  not  a  precept  given  to  be  exalted  to  a 
universal  external  law.  The  Saviour  there  speaks  for  those  only  who  are  able  to  re- 
ceive it. 

f  Indeed,  the  Romish  Church  even  increases  the  severity  of  the  command  on  its  own 
authority,  since  it  does  not  permit  divorce  quoad  vinctdum  even  in  case  of  adultery. 

\  The  Saviour  is  not  here  legislating.  He  is  simply  explaining  that  divorce  for  other 
reasons  than  adultery,  and  re-marriage  in  such  cases,  is  positively  sinful.  Thus  much, 
at  least,  follows,  that  the  Christian  Church  cannot  bless  such  a  positively  sinful  act. — [E. 

§  (The  above  discussion  may  seem  strange  to  those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the 
opinions  and  practices  respecting  divorce  prevalent  in  Germany.  Divorce  is  much  more 
common  than  in  England,  and  is  granted  for  many  other  causes  than  that  of  unfaithful- 
ness. The  question  has  been  much  debated,  and  some  of  the  pastors  have  felt  strong 
scruples  in  solemnizing  marriages,  where  one  or  both  of  the  parties  may  be  persons  who 
have  been  divorced.  The  defence  offered  above  is  very  inadequate.  The  distinction  be- 


MATTHEW  V.  33-37.  311 

Ver.  33-37. — Fourth  observation — on  oaths.  The  plain  require- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  in  Lev.  xix.  12,  ova  KmopKT'ioeL$,  thou 
slialt  not  foreswear  thyself,  was  distorted  by  the  Rabbins  from  a 
comparison  of  Numb.  xxx.  3  ;  Deut.  xxiii.  21  (where  vows  [upitoi 
=  tr-ins]  which  were,  for  the  most  part,  accompanied  by  oaths,  are 
the  subject),  so  that  they  taught  the  evasion  of  their  fulfilment 
towards  men  through  a  hypocritical  reference  of  them  to  God.  To 
this  hypocritical  behaviour  the  Saviour  opposes  that  of  the  children 
of  God.  The  command  of  Moses,  "  Thou  shalt  not  swear  falsely," 
Jesus  converts  into,  "  Thou  shalt  not  swear  at  all;  because  he  sees 
in  swearing,  just  as  in  the  case  of  divorce  above,  nothing  but  a  per- 
mission rendered  necessary  by  sin.  But  in  order  to  combine  the  ex- 
pression of  this  abstract  principle  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  with  a 
refutation  of  the  hypocritical  Rabbinical  interpretation  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  Jesus  specifies  four  forms  of  swearing  familiar 
to  the  Jews ;  and  demonstrates,  first,  that  all  of  them  refer  to  God, 
and  that  it  is  only  in  their  being  referred  to  him  that  they  mean 
any  thing  ;  next,  that  they  are,  one  and  all,  inadmissible  in  the 
kingdom  of -God.  The  subjoined  clauses,  "For  it  is  God's  throne," 
etc.,  refer  to  that  Rabbinical  interpretation,  that  a  man  need  not 
perform  oaths  that  do  not  refer  to  God  himself.  For  this  reason,  in 
the  case  of  each  form  of  swearing,  its  reference  to  God  is  demon- 
strated by  our  Lord  ;  and  it  is  implied,  that  it  is  only  by  virtue  of 
this  reference  that  it  can  have  any  meaning.  (See  more  fully  in  note 
on  Matth,  xxiii.  16,  ff.) — The  conceiving  of  heaven  and  earth  as 
throne  and  footstool  of  God  (Isa.  Ixvi.  1)  is,  of  course,  figura- 
tive ;  but  the  figure  is  founded  on  the  true  thought,  that  to 
the  Omnipresent  Being  heaven  and  earth  stand  in  different  relations. 
He  who  is  everywhere  present,  is  yet  everywhere  different.  Jerusa- 
lem, as  the  seat  of  the  visible  theocracy,  is  called  God's  city  (Psalm 
xlviii.  2 ;)  and  an  oath  by  the  city  acquires  its  significancy  from  this 
peculiar  relation.  The  reason  subjoined  to  the  oath  :  "  by  the 
head,"*  is  obscure.  That  oath  is  similar  to  the  Mohammedan 
swearing  by  the  beard.  It  is  explained,  however,  if  we  take  in  this 
case  negatively,  what,  in  the  other  cases,  was  expressed  positively. 

tween  an  external  and  internal  church  results  only  from  laxity  of  discipline,  conjoined 
with  the  absorption  of  the  church  in  the  State,  which  prevails  in  the  German  Govern- 
ments. The  external  church  is,  in  fact,  those  who  have  the  name  of  Christians,  and 
nothing  more,  and  are  not,  therefore,  of  Christ's  church,  and  would  not  be  in  visible 
communion,  if  a  right  state  of  tilings,  as  to  discipline,  were  restored.  It  can  never  be 
admitted,  that  there  is  any  power  on  earth  that  can  assume  authority  to  relax  Christ's 
plain  command.  Tn  the  church,  his  command  is  law,  and,  so  far  as  marriage  and  divorce 
come  under  secular  jurisdiction,  the  government  of  a  Christian  country  is  bound  to  follow 
the  precepts  of  Christian  morals.) — Tr. 

*  The  construction  of  opiaat  with  the  accusative  (James  v.  12),  or  with  Kara  and  the 
genitive  (as  in  Heb.  vi.  16),  is  pure  Greek.  In  tho  New  Testament  it  is  generally 
construed  with  KV  or  «V  after  the  analogy  of  a  yattis  in  Hebrew. 


312  MATTHEW  V.  37-42. 

What  impotent  man  cannot  accomplish — make  one  hair  white  or 
black — i.  e.,  produce  the  slightest  change  in  himself — the  Almighty 
can  accomplish.  Dost  thou  swear,  then,  by  thyself?  thy  oath  can 
have  no  meaning,  except  as  thou  intendest  him  who  wills  that 
thou  thyself  shouldst  exist.  Hence  every  oath,  if  it  is  to  have 
any  meaning,  refers  to  God,  since  he  only,  the  Eternal,  can  give  a 
pledge  for  the  security  of  what  is  transitory. — But  as  the  entire  pro- 
hibition of  all  swearing  is  joined  to  this  thought,  it  is  evident  that 
we  may  not  draw  this  conclusion  :  "  Since  all  objects  of  adjuration 
have  a  reference  to  God,  by  which  they  acquire  their  import,  we  are 
to  swear  only  by  God  ;"  but,  on  the  contrary,  "  Since  we  are  to  re- 
frain from  swearing  in  general,  and  all  oaths  refer  originally  to  God, 
the  eternal  and  true,  we  are  not  to  employ  any  oath  ;  the  simplest 
statement  of  opinion  is  sufficient,  any  thing  further  has  spruDg  from 
the  source  of  evil,  and  become  necessary  only  by  reason  of  sin." 
The  idea,  that  only  the  abuse  of  oaths  is  forbidden,  can  never  be 
defended  by  a  true  interpretation.  In  the  passage,  James  v.  12,  a 
different  view  might,  for  a  moment,  commend  itself,  on  account  of 
the  different  position  of  the  words  ;  but  even  there,  on  a  closer  ex- 
amination, the  connexion  requires  the  sense  of  prohibiting  oaths  in 
general.  This  absolute  prohibition  of  our  Lord  can  occasion  no  dif- 
ficulty, [if  we  consider  that  here  again  Christ  is  not  giving  a,  formal 
law,  but  uttering  a  truth.  The  Jews  in  taking  oaths,  proceeded  on 
the  assumption  that  there  are  oaths  which  must  be  kept,  and  others 
which  may  be  violated,  while  declarations  without  this  sanction,  may 
be  so  with  entire  impunity.  Our  Saviour  sets  aside  entirely  this 
artificial  distinction.  An  oath  founded  on  the  false  conception  of 
being  essential  to  create  an  obligation  to  keep  one's  word  is  sin. 
Every  word  must  be  truth,  and  uttered  in  a  conscious  appeal  to  an 
omnipresent  and  holy  God.  Every  word  must  be  an  oath  in  the  true 
sense.  Hence  follows  that  before  the  court  (Matth.  xxvi.  63)  and 
even  elsewhere  (Bom.  i.  9 ;  ix.  1  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  17  ;  xi.  10  ;  Phil.  i.  8  ; 
1  Thess.  ii.  5  and  10)  it  must  be  allowed  to  call  God  to  witness ; 
provided  that  this  be  done  for  the  sake  of  others,  and  not  under  the 
delusive  idea  that  it  is  by  our  adjuration  that  we  are  obligating  our- 
selves to  speak  truth. — E.] 

Ver.  38-42. — The  fifth  instance  comprises  the  nature  of  the  law 
in  a  general  maxim,  and  opposes  the  evangelical  principle  to  the 
pharisaical  conception  of  it.  The  idea  of  retaliation  (jus  talionis), 
which  is  the  foundation  of  law  in  general,  is  expressed  in  o</>0a/,ju6v 
dvTi  tydatyav  scil.  dwtretf  K.  r.  A.,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  etc.  Exod.  xxi. 
24.  But  the  Pharisees  made  such  a  use  of  retaliation,  that  it  could 
not  but  become  a  cloak  for  revenge  and  uncharitableness.  Christ, 
on  the  contrary,  conceives  the  idea  of  law  in  the  spirit  of  the  purest 
love,  and  derives  thence  the  command  of  self-denial  and  resignation. 


MATTHEW  V.  38-42.  313 

u  Eye  for  eye,  tooth,  for  tooth,"  is  an  eternal  law  in  the  government 
jf  the  world  ;  but  love  takes  the  brother's  fault  on  itself,  and,  by 
thus  becoming  like  him,  causes  him  to  become  like  it.  Thus,  out 
of  the  jus  talionis,  love  procures  redemption  and  forgiveness,  which 
is  nothing  but  retribution  reversed,  and  cannot,  therefore,  exist  with- 
out the  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer.  This  conquering  by  yielding  is 
the  essence  of  the  G-ospel ;  the  law  is  founded  on  the  dvTiarfjvai  rw 
TTovrjp&,  repelling  force  by  force.*  The  manifestations  of  love  in  con- 
trast with  the  rude  character  of  retaliation,  are  then  presented  in 
four  instances,  arranged  in  an  anti-climax.  Outrage  on  the  person 
is  the  most  grievous  (pam&iv  is  of  kindred  meaning  with  KO^O^I^SIV, 
the  latter,  however,  denoting  rather  blows  with  the  fist) ;  next  to 
this  in  order  comes  the  demanding  of  property  (ttpivecdai,  to  claim 
before  a  tribunal);  asking,  as  the  mildest  form  of  presenting  a  re- 
quest, forms  the  close.  Between  the  two  latter  forms,  dyyapeveiv,  to 
constrain,  is  placed,  as  partaking  of  both.  (The  term  is  of  Persian 
origin,  but  was  adopted  into  the  prevalent  languages  of  antiquity  ; 
the  Aramaic  language  also  adopted  it.  See  Suxtorf.  Lex.  talm.  s.  v. 
In  Luke  vi.  30,  the  words  nal  dnb  rov  acpovro^  rd  ad  p) 
,  are  added — the  general  thought  for  the  particular  instancea 
in  Matthew.  ('A-rrairew  =  tow,  to  exact,  to  demand.) 

The  preceding  observations  on  marriage  and  oaths  apply  like- 
wise to  the  carrying  out  of  this  command.  The  Saviour  does  not 
intend  by  his  precept  for  his  kingdom  to  invalidate  the  truth  of  the 
maxim,  "  An  eye  for  an  eye,"  as  a  legal  principle  ;  he  who  holds 
the  legal  position  cannot,  and  must  not,  be  treated  otherwise  than 
according  to  the  law.f  But  for  him  who  is  possessed  by  the  spirit 
of  the  Gospel,  without  having  as  yet  overcome  the  power  of  sin,  the 
conduct  indicated  by  the  Saviour  is  suitable.  Where  the  spirit  is 
still  uncultured  and  hard,  there  it  would  not  be  love,  but  unkind- 
ness,  to  shew  unappreciated  love.  What,  for  instance,  could  be 
more  unkind  than  a  literal  use  of  the  precept,  navrl  rw  al-ovvri 
oe  6idov,  give  TO  EVEKY  MAN  that  asketh  of  thee  ?  It  would  be  to 
form  begging  vagabonds.  Hence  the  application  and  exercise  of 
the  laws  of  love  cannot  be  reduced  to  fixed  rules  ;  love  alone  teaches 

*  "We  cannot  very  well  take  irovripu  as  neuter  here ;  for  it  is  our  duty,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, to  oppose  what  is  evil  in  itself.  But  here  the  evil  is  viewed  in  its  effects  in 
an  individual,  in  whom  there  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  susceptibility  for  good.  In  reference 
to  this  mixture  of  good  and  bad,  the  Saviour  may  say,  that  the  member  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  does  not  resist  the  manifestations  of  sin,  in  order  to  accomplish  for  the  good  a  perfect 
conquest  in  the  heart  of  his  brother,  by  the  manifestation  of  forbearing  love,  which  is  ex- 
pressed thereby. 

f  Thus  the  Saviour  himself  answers  the  rude  servant  who  struck  him  on  the  face :  If 
I  have  spoken  evil,  prove  that  it  is  evil ;  but  if  I  have  spoken  right,  why  smitest  thou  me? 
John  xviii.  23.  To  turn  to  him  the  other  cheek  would  have  been  an  inn-action  of  love, 
as  it  would  have  brought  the  man  into  the  temptation  of  increasing  his  sin  by  increased 
turpitude.  Paul  behaves  similarly,  Acts  xxiii.  3. 


314  MATTHEW  V.  42-45. 

us  to  apply  them  properly,  and  enables  the  scribe,  instructed  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  to  bring  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and  old. 
For  this  order  of  things,  before  the  full  manifestation  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  the  law  still  retains  its  application  ;  yet  the  Gospel 
has  its  sphere,  in  which  it  is  ever  gradually  unfolding  its  nature 
more  perfectly. 

Ver.  43-45. — At  last  Jesus  comes  to  what  is  highest  and  final — 
to  love  itself.  The  command,  ^sn^  pansi,  Thou  slialt  love  thy  neigh- 
bour (Lev.  xix.  18),  applied  it  is  true,  immediately,  as  the  context 
shews,  to  the  nation  of  Israel,  which,  to  them,  in  their  partial  state 
of  development,  represented  that  collective  humanity,  to  which 
neighbour,  in  its  profoundest  sense  referred.  But  the  hypocritical 
Pharisees  drew  the  inference  from  this  command,  that  we  were  at 
liberty  to  hate  our  enemy.  ('E^0p6f ,  like  hostis,  primarily  "  one  not 
of  the  same  people."  See  the  passages  quoted  in  Wetstcin  and 
Schottgen,  ad  loc.)  They  not  only  tolerated  hatred  of  enemies,  as 
something  at  the  time  not  quite  conquerable,  but  they  cherished  it 
as  something  allowable,  nay,  included  (by  implication)  in  the  com- 
mand. To  this  outrageous  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Jesus  opposes  his  own,  which  unfolds  the  undeveloped  truth  from 
its  inward  nature  and  principle.  The  fulness  of  love,  taught  by 
Jesus,  and  imparted  from  his  fulness  to  his  people,  not  only  extends 
over  the  narrow  circle  of  national  affinities,  but  makes  what  is  op- 
posite, as  well  as  what  is  akin  to  it,  the  object  of  its  exercise.  The 
different  manifestations  of  love  (dyarrav,  et>AoyeZv,  /ca/lwf  TTOIEIV,  irpo- 
oevxeodai),  form  a  climax,  and  are  in  contrast  with  the  forms  of 
hatred  ;  these  latter,  indeed,  as  such,  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be 
loved  ;  but  the  individuals  are,  in  whom  they  are  seen,  since  there 
is  in  them  the  latent  germ  of  a  nobler  existence,  which  is  to  be 
awakened  by  the  power  of  love.  But  the  love  here  enjoined,  is  no 
passive  love,  residing  merely  in  the  domain  of  feeling ;  for  that  can 
never  be  excited  by  the  manifestations  of  hatred,  but  is  influenced 
only  by  kindred  qualities  ;  it  is  rather  love  as  a  power  of  the  will, 
which  is  able  to  overcome  all  (opposing)  feelings.  For  this  reason, 
too,  assimilation  to  God  is  assigned  as  the  end  of  the  manifestation 
of  love  to  enemies.  (In  vl6$,  son,  the  representation  of  the  image, 
existing  in  the  Father,  is  expressed.)  As  God  abhors  evil,  and 
commands  us  to  abhor  it  (Rom.  xii.  9),  but  blesses  the  evil  man; 
so  does  he,  too,  who  lives  in  pure,  divine  love.  The  Spirit  of  God 
in  him  teaches  him  to  separate  the  evil  from  the  man ;  and  while 
he  hates  the  former,  to  love  the  latter.  But  such  love  man  cannot 
obtain  for  himself  by  a  determination  of  will  or  by  any  effort,  for  it 
is  divine  ;  he  can  receive  it  only  by  spiritual  communication  in  faith. 
Yet  this  by  no  means  excludes  the  effort  to  exercise  it  before  it  is 
possessed,  as  it  is  that  very  effort  that  awakens  us  to  the  conscious- 


MATTHEW  V.  45-48.  315 


ness  of  its  necessity.  ('ErrT/pea^v  occurs,  besides  in  this  passage, 
only  in  Luke  vi.  28  ;  1  Peter  iii.  16.  According  to  Pollux,  it  is  a 
law  term,  meaning  "  to  drag  before  a  judge  with  ignominy  and  in- 
sult ;"  then,  in  general,  "  to  injure,"  "  to  insult.")  Luke  adds  an- 
other trait,  lend  hoping  for  nothing  again  (vi.  35),  where,  likewise, 
sincere,  disinterested  love  is  expressed.  Luke  has  expanded  this 
thought  afterwards,  when  he  comes  to  portray  the  forms  in  which 
natural  love  manifests  itself.  On  the  whole,  with  the  exception  of 
one  unessential  transposition,  Luke  has  the  same  thoughts  here,  and 
they  must,  therefore,  certainly  be  regarded  as  original,  integral  parts 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Ver.  46,  47.  —  As  a  parallel  to  this  sacred  love,  which  includes 
even  what  is  hostile  in  the  sphere  of  its  exercise,  and  which  is 
bestowed  in  regeneration  alone,  Jesus  brings  forward  natural  love, 
which  loves  only  what  is  akin  to  it,  and,  in  that,  itself  essentially. 
(Ephes.  v.  28,  "  He  that  loveth  his  wife,  loveth  himself.")  Such 
is  the  prevailing  power  of  love  in  the  Old  Testament,  a  few  traces 
of  love  to  enemies  excepted  (as  in  the  case  of  David,  1  Sam.  xxvi.) 
which  point  to  a  future  higher  grade  of  religious  life.  As  such  it 
does  not  stand  opposed  to  the  higher  love  of  Christ,  but  beneath,  as 
something  subordinate,  which  has  its  analogy  even  in  the  animal 
world.  The  rek&vai  and  tdviicoi,  publicans  and  Gentiles,  in  Matthew, 
the  duaprtiXoi,  sinners  (nopvai,  Matth.  xxi.  81)  in  Luke,  are  men- 
tioned as  standing  emblems,  with  the  Pharisees,  of  what  is  despised. 
In  the  publican,  in  particular,  the  prominent  characteristic  is  being 
involved  by  the  calls  of  his  station  in  the  lowest  worldly  connexions  ; 
for  which  reason  the  taxgatherers  are  used  as  a  symbol  of  worldli- 
ness  and  its  temptations.  ^A.mrd&odai  is  a  general  term  for  tokens 
of  love  of  all  kinds.)  —  In  these  verses,  moreover,  the  idea  of  [uadog, 
reivard,  appears  again.  (See  note  on  ver.  12.)  Natural  love  is 
represented  as  being  accompanied  by  a  less  reward  than  pure  love. 
There  is  evidently  a  condescension  here  to  the  legal  level,  for  it  is 
just  the  nature  of  sincere  love  to  seek  no  other  reward  than  that 
which  is  in  itself.  But  as,  in  fact,  the  possession  of  it  involves  all 
that  constitutes  blessedness,  because  God  is  love  (1  John  iv.  8),  and 
no  one  can  love  but  he  in  whom  God  dwells  ;  it  is  certainly  true, 
also,  that  its  reward  is  great.  But  a  distinction  between  love  and 
its  reward,  and  of  an  effort  to  attain  the  former  for  the  sake  of  the 
latter,  can  exist  only  on  the  level  of  the  law  ;  pure  love  seeks 
itself  for  its  own  sake,  for  it  includes  in  itself  all  that  can  be  desired. 

Yer.  48.  —  The  last  words  contained  in  this  verse  are,  as  it  were, 
the  key-stone  which  completes  the  whole.  The  general  result  not 
merely  of  our  Lord's  last  commands,  but  of  all  that  precedes,  is  : 
Let  perfection  be  your  aim.  ("Rereads  ovv  is  parallel  with  OTTWC  yt-vr]o6e 
above,  ver.  45.)  For  the  observance  of  but  one  of  these  commands, 


316  MATTHEW  V.  48 ;  VI.  1-6. 

as  here  laid  down  by  our  Lord,  nothing  short  of  perfection  is  suffi- 
cient. It  does  not,  therefore,  alter  the  thought,  if,  instead  of 
rtteioi,  perfect,  as  it  is  in  Matthew,  we  read  olKrip^ove^,  merciful,  as 
it  is  in  Luke  vi.  36.  For  neither  pure  love  nor  mercy  can  be  con- 
ceived alone  in  the  human  soul,  without  the  other  qualities  involved 
in  perfection  ;  so  that  all  must  necessarily  be  conceived  as  joined 
with  the  one.  But  to  refine  upon  the  idea  of  "  perfect,"  and  to 
understand  it  of  a  relative  perfection,  is  evidently  forbidden  by  the 
words  subjoined  :  &anep  6  -narrip  V/MJV,  as  your  father',  which,  as  com- 
pared with  ver.  45,  cannot  mean  any  thing  else  than  that  the  image 
of  God  is  to  be  represented  in  men,  as  the  sons  of  the  highest.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  passage  is  parallel  with  that  in  the  Old  Testament, 
ISN  fc'nj?  13  tnfc-ij?  ti^:™  (Lev.  xi.  44),  which  Peter  adopts ;  ayioi 
yevea6e,  on  eyo>  dyiog  elpt,  be  ye  holy,  etc.  (1  Pet.  i.  16),  and  is  ex- 
plained by  it.  That  is,  as  in  that  passage  the  requirement  of  holi- 
ness on  man's  part  is  founded  on  the  holiness  of  God,  so  here  also 
in  relation  to  perfection  ;  so  that  this  passage  may  be  interpreted, 
"  Be  ye  perfect,  because  God  is  perfect."  The  perfection  of  man, 
as  well  as  his  holiness,  is  not  separate  from  that  of  God,  such  as 
man  might  possibly  attain  of  himself ;  it  is  the  divine  perfection 
itself;  God  himself  designs  to  be  the  perfect  and  holy  One  in  man. 
In  this  way  the  passage  must  be  interpreted,  on  the  principle  that 
every  speaker  is  t]ie  expositor  of  his  own  words,  even  though  we 
should  regard  the  notion  itself  as  false. 

Matth.  vi.  1-6. — After  this  prefatory  comparison  of  the  holy 
character  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  with  the  unholy  teachings  of  the 
doctors  of  the  law,  the  thought  of  v.  20  is  resumed.  The  reality  is 
opposed  to  the  appearance  ;  the  latter  has  what  is  visble  and  tran- 
sitory for  its  object  and  proper  end  (OTTW^  8o%ao6&aiv  VTTO  r&v 
dvdpunuv,  that  they  may  have  glory  of  men),  the  former  what  is 
invisible  and  eternal ;  God  in  heaven  is  placed  in  contrast  with  men 
on  earth.  Aiitaioovvr)*  righteousness,  conveys  again,  as  in  ver.  20, 
the  general  idea  of  a  right  relation  to  God,  viewed  in  the  light  both 
of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  This  contrast  is  viewed  in 
reference  to  alms  (ver.  2)  and  prayer  (ver.  5)  as  the  prominent  man- 
ifestations of  the  religious  life.  (Ziakm&iv,  sound  a  trumpet,  is  not 
to  be  taken  literally,  but  figuratively,  "  to  do  any  thing  with  osten- 
tation." 'M.iodbv  dire%eiv,  have  a  reward,  is  spoken  of  in  reference  to 
the  time  of  the  future  general  reward,  when  only  what  is  eternal 
finds  its  reward,  because  it  was  accomplished  by  the  working  of  God's 
eternal  Spirit.)  The  figure  in  ver.  3  cannot  mean  total  uncon- 
sciousness, which  should  in  no  case  exist,  but  only  the  absence  of 

*  The  reading  e?.ej?/iOffw%  which  is  supported  by  very  many  Codd.,  is,  probably,  only 
an  explanation  of  dtKaioavvrj,  which,  in  later  Greek,  is  used  for  "alms,"  like  the  Hebrew 
Paul  uses  it  in  2  Cor.  ix.  9,  for  "kindness,"  "  charitableness." 


MATTHEW  VI.  6-18.  317 

self-appropriation  of  the  act ;  every  good  deed  must  be  referred 
to  its  origin — to  the  spiritual  source  from  which  it  springs ;  there 
it  has  even  now  its  hidden  reward,  and  hereafter  its  open  one. 
To  the  outward  proclamation  of  works  of  love  by  the  Pharisees  is 
opposed  the  humble  ignorance  of  one's  doings.  (Tapielov  =  n^y  = 
tfffepwov,  a  chamber,  to  which  they  could  retire  for  prayer,  in  quiet, 
Acts  x.  9 ;  see  also  Isa.  xxvi.  20.  The  term  vnoicpir^g,  hypocrite, 
occurs  frequently  in  the  Gospels — e.  g.,  in  this  chap.,  ver.  5,  16  ; 
vii.  5  ;  xv.  7  ;  xvi.  3  ;  xxiii.  13,  and  frequently  in  Matthew  ;  again 
in  Luke  vi.  42  ;  xi.  44,  etc.  The  verb  vnoicpiveadai  occurs  only  in 
Luke  xx.  20.  It  is  properly  originally  =  dnotcpiveodai,  to  answer, 
then  particularly,  "  to  answer  as  a  character  in  a  play" — i.  e.,  "  to 
act  on  the  stage."  Then,  in  general,  "  to  assume  a  form  not  one's 
own" — "  to  represent  it."  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  always  used 
of  religious  form,  with  which  the  inward  nature  does  not  corre- 
spond.) 

Ver.  7-13. — These  verses  bring  out  the  last  remark  in  a  special 
application.  In  Phariseeism,  not  only  does  the  character  of  hypo- 
crisy manifest  itself  in  prayer,  but  also  the  heathen  notion  (perpetually 
reproduced  from  the  heathenism  inherent  in  human  nature),  that 
prayer  avails  as  opus  operatum,  and,  consequently,  from  length  and 
copiousness  of  words.  From  the  pure  idea  of  God,  the  Saviour 
teaches  us  to  regard  the  inward  disposition  and  the  purity  of  thought 
resulting  thence  as  that  which  is  well-pleasing  to  God.  Matthew 
also  presents,  as  a  pattern,  a  prayer  given  by  Jesus,  which  is  per- 
vaded by  simplicity,  depth,  and  humility.  Luke  (xi.  1)  records  the 
circumstances  which  occasioned  our  Lord  to  give  such  an  injunction. 
The  disciples  felt  their  spiritual  poverty,  and  supplicated  his  rich 
grace  to  teach  them  to  pray.  Hence,  too,  it  is  said,  u  thus  pray  ye  ;" 
for  it  is  a  prayer  calculated  for  the  position  of  sinful  men,  not  for 
him  who  knew  no  sin.  (BarroAoyeTv*  is  not  from  sas,  effutivit;  but 
according  to  Suidas  it  is  derived  d-nb  Edrrov  TIVO$  paicpov$  not 
-noXvari^ovg  vpvovf  Troiriacgvro^.^  Hence  ftarro^oyia  =  TroAv/loyta.) 
Superstition  places  the  reason  of  the  hearing  of  prayer  not  in  the 
grace  of  God,  but  in  its  own  godless  work.  Unbelief  deduces  the 
uselessness  of  prayer  from  the  omniscience  of  God,  in  whom  it 
does  not  itself  believe.  Faith  rests  its  humble  prayer  precisely  on 
this  holy,  gracious,  divine  knowledge.  Thus  our  Lord  teaches  us  to 
pray  in  faith,  because  God  knows,  before  the  petition  what  we  need 
(xpeia,  need,  taken  both  bodily  and  spiritually),  and,  consequently, 
can  himself  prompt  the  acceptable  prayer,  and  fulfil  it  accordingly. 

*  See  the  copious  discussion  on  this  rare  term,  which  is  nowhere  used  but  by  Sim- 
plidus  in  one  passage  (in  Epict.  enchir.,  c.  37)  in  TholucWs  Comm.  (Clark's  Biblical  Cab., 
No.  xx.,  p.  114.) 

f  "  One  Eattus,  who  composed  long  prolix  hymns." 


318  MATTHEW  VI.  7-13. 

The  words  olde  yap,  for  he  knoivs,  are  to  be  taken  as  the  reason 
which  prevents  the  Christians  from  praying  after  the  heathen  man- 
ner. The  believer  does  not  pray  for  God's  sake  (to  do  him  a  ser- 
vice), but  for  his  own  sake  ;  that  God  knows,  affords  to  him  the 
consolation  that  he  cannot  ask  wrong  ;  for  he  is  concerned  only  for 
God's  will,  not  for  his  own.  The  prayer  of  the  believer  is  therefore 
nothing  less  than  the  divine  will  itself  becoming  manifest  in  hu- 
manity ;  thus  the  Lord's  Prayer  is  conceived.  It  is  an  expression 
of  the  highest,  final,  divine  plans  in  the  government  of  the  world, 
both  as  to  the  whole  and  the  individual. 

With  reference,  first,  to  the  state  of  the  text  of  THE  LORD'S 
PRAYER,*  the  doxology  at  the  close  is  undoubtedly  of  later  origin, 
and  is  added  for  liturgical  purposes.  In  the  Const.  Apost.,  vii.  24,  it 
appears  in  the  process  of  formation;  it  reads,  on  aov  lanv  rifiaoikna  d^ 
al&va<;.  'A.fi7)v. — For  thine  is  the  kingdom  for  ever.  Amen.  But 
the  contents  are  profound  and  agreeable  to  the  spirit  of  the  prayer, 
and,  therefore,  certainly  belonging  to  a  period  when  pure  Christian 
feeling  prevailed  in  the  church.  It  is  wanting  in  Codd.,  B.  D.  L., 
and  in  many  others,  as  Griesbach's  New  Testament  shews.  Still  it 
is  found  as  early  as  the  Peshito,  where,  however',  it  may  be  an  inter- 
polation. So  also  the  petitions,  "  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is 
in  heaven  ;"  and,  "  But  deliver  us  from  evil,"  are  wanting  in  the 
text  of  St.  Luke.  They  are  wanting  not  only  in  B.  L.,  but  also  in 
the  earliest  fathers,  as  in  Origen  (de  Orat.,  p.  226,  edit,  de  la  Hue, 
vol.  ii.),  who  expressly  notices  the  omission.  But  it  does  not  follow 
from  this  that  they  are  spurious  in  the  prayer  ;  Luke  rather  ap- 
pears to  have  abridged  here,  in  the  same  manner  as  we  noticed  at 
Matth.  v.  1.  These  petitions  do  not,  indeed,  form  an  essential  part 
of  the  prayer,  since  they  are  included  in  those  immediately  preced- 
ing ;  but  for  an  unfolding  of  the  meaning  they  are  an  integral  part.f 
The  question,  Whether  Christ  meant  to  lay  down  a  stated  formula 
in  this  prayer  ?  may  be  best  answered  to  this  effect,  that  the  Saviour 
certainly  had  in  view,  as  his  primary  object,  to  teach  the  disciples  to 
pray  in  spirit  ;  but  in  so  far  as  he  contemplated  the  arising  of  an 
outward  church  that  should  require  liturgical  formulas,  he  might  in- 
tend its  permanent  use  also  ;  and  the  church  has  done  right  to  re- 
tain it.  But  that  no  value  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  letter,  is  shewn 
by  the  variation  with  which  the  Evangelists  themselves  record  the 
prayer.  In  Kabbinical  and  Talmudical  writings  (according  to  Wct- 

*  "We  possess  separate  expositions  of  this  prayer  by  Origen,  Tertullian,  and  Cyprian. 

f  On  the  form  of  the  Lord's  prayer  found  in  Luke,  see  the  more  copious  remarks  in 
note  on  Luke  xi.  3,  ff.  On  the  omission  of  the  doxology,  see  Rodiger's  dissertation  at  the 
end  of  the  synopsis,  p.  231,  ff.  A  transposition  of  the  second  and  third  petitions  in  Ter- 
tullian  is  discussed  by  Nitzsch,  in  the  "  Studien  und  Kritiken,"  published  by  Wlmann  and 
Umbreit,  1830.  II.  4,  S.  846,  ff.  Meyer's  "  Blatter  fur  hohere  Wahrheit,"  Tb,  v.,  S.  10,  ff., 
give  an  exposition  of  the  prayer. 


MATTHEW  VI.  7-13.  319 

stein,  Sclwttgen,  Lightfoot,  in  their  notes  on  this  passage)  there  are 
very  many  thoughts  akin  to  the  individual  petitions.  We  learn 
thence  how  much  of  what  is  spiritual  and  true  is  contained  in  the 
Jewish  writings  ;  only  it  is  generally  mixed  with  error  by  the  pe- 
dantic Rabbins.  Bat  it  is  very  perverse  to  infer  froin  this  relation- 
ship of  the  prayer  to  Rabbinical  passages,  that  Jesus  compiled  his 
prayer  by  reflection  from  such  elements  of  Jewish  prayers.  What- 
ever of  noble  and  true  was  presented  to  him  in  the  national  culture 
wrought  only  to  stimulate  his  inward  development ;  and  even  what 
he  did  derive  thence,  he  reproduced  with  fresh  life  from  his  own  cre- 
ative and  vitalizing  power.  But  the  exposition  has  not  only  to  un- 
fold the  individual  thoughts,  but  to  regard  them  in  their  connexion. 
Regarded  as  a  whole,  the  Lord's  Prayer  contains  but  one  thought — 
the  desire  of  the  kingdom  of  God* — into  which  all  the  prayers  of 
God's  children  (and,  as  such,  Christ  here  teaches  us  to  pray)  may  be 
resolved.  This  one  thought,  however,  is  conceived  in  two  relations  ; 
first,  in  reference  to  God's  relation  to  man — thus  in  the  first  three 
petitions,  which  represent  the  kingdom  of  God  as  advancing  to  com- 
pletion, and  the  highest  purpose  of  God  expressed  as  a  wish  ;  next, 
in  reference  to  man's  relation  to  God — thus  in  the  last  four  petitions, 
in  which  the  hindrances  to  God's  kingdom  are  noticed.  The  first 
part  commences,  therefore,  with  speaking  of  the  riches  of  God  : — 

THY  name  be  hallowed  ; 
THY  kingdom  come  to  us  ; 
THY  will  be  done. 

The  second  part,  on  the  other  hand,  speaks  of  the  poverty  of 
man  : — 

To  us  give  daily  bread  ; 
To  us  forgive  sins  ; 
Us  lead  not  into  temptation ; 
Us  deliver  from  evil. 

In  the  significant  doxology,  the  certain  hope  is  expressed  of  the 
prayer  being  heard — a  hope  founded  in  the  nature  of  the  unchange- 
able God  himself,  who,  as  the  chief  good,  will  cause  the  good  to  be 
realized  in  a  manifest  form  (the  kingdom  of  God.)  At  the  same 
time,  this  prayer  admits  of  an  application  to  the  individual  (who  is 
compelled,  however,  in  the  constantly  recurring  plural,  to  regard 
himself  in  connexion  with  all),  as  well  as  to  collective  humanity ; 
for  this  very  reason,  that  being  uttered  from  the  inmost  soul  of  hu- 
manity, and  seizing  the  relation  of  God  to  the  sinful  race  in  its 

*  Luther  is  right,  therefore,  in  saying,  "  the  true  Christian  prays  an  everlasting  Lord's 
Prayer,"  inasmuch  as  his  whole  desire  centres  in  God's  kingdom. 


320  MATTHEW  VI.  7-13. 

deepest  root,  it  meets  the  wants  of  the  whole  and  of  the  individual 
equally,  provided  always  that  he  is  living  in  faith.  Every  prayer 
directed  not  to  transitory  particulars,  but  to  eternal  things,  is  in- 
cluded in  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

In  the  invocation  :  "  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven"  (narep 
^JMJV  6  KV  rolg  ovpavot^),  there  is  implied,  first,  an  elevation  above 
what  is  earthly  and  transitory  to  what  is  eternal  and  enduring  ;  and, 
next,  the  consciousness  of  our  relationship  to  the  eternal.  The  name 
Father  presupposes  the  consciousness  of  sonship  (Kom.  viii.  15).  This 
sentiment  marks  the  prayer  as  belonging  to  the  New  Testament ;  for 
though  Isaiah  exclaims,  «^N  nnsj  13,  thou  art  our  father  (Isa.  Ixiii.  16), 
yet  that  must  be  viewed  as  a  momentary  illumination  of  the  higher 
spirit  of  the  New  Testament ;  in  general,  the  relation  of  servant  to 
master  (in  which  relationship  is  subordinate)  prevails  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  first  petition  :  dyiaoOiJTb)  TO  ovofid  aov,  halloived  be  thy 
name,  is  closely  connected  with  the  two  following.  ' Ayid&adai,  used 
of  what  is  unholy,  means  "to  be  made  holy  ;"*  but,  used  of  what  is 
holy,  it  means  to  be  recognized  as  such"  =  »•"!)?*.  f  The  spread  of 
the  pure  worship  of  God  is,  therefore,  the  subject  of  this  petition. 
Only,  as  Augustine  (de  Corr.  et  Grat.  c.  6)  very  truly  remarks,  this 
is  not  here  to  be  understood  of  outward  progress,  but  of  inward  ;  so 
that  the  meaning  is,  "  sanctificetur  nomen  tuum  in  nobis.  A 
knowledge  of  what  is  holy  (not  in  idea  merely,  but  experimentally), 
presupposes  inward  holiness  ;  for  only  kindred  minds  know  what  is 
akin  (Psalm  xxxvi.  10).  The  meaning  of  dyid&aOai,  be  hallowed,  in 
this  jalace,  is  therefore  much  like  that  of  dogd&odai,  glorified,  as  em- 
ployed by  John  (John  xiii.  31 ;  xiv.  13  ;  xv.  8,  and  elsewhere)  in  the 
sense  of  being  glorified.  The  divine  name  (ovofw  =  op)  is  put  for 
the  divine  essence  itself,  inasmuch  as  it  expresses  and  reveals  the 
latter  in  its  nature.  (See  the  locus  classicus,  Exod.  xxiii.  21).  The 
divine  must  therefore,  first  of  all,  glorify  itself  in  human  nature,  and 
by  that  means  become  known  to  man  in  its  true  nature  ;  not  till 
then  can  the  kingdom  of  God  come.  The  second  petition :  IWeru  fj 
fiaoiXeia  aov,  thy  kingdom  come,  regards  the  divine  power  exerting 
itself  within,  which  is  supposed,  in  the  first  petition,  as  appearing 
outwardly ;  [from  the  original  source  of  all  grace  the  suppliant 
passes  over  to  the  final  consummation  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  comp. 
Kev.  xxii.  20  ;  in  the  third  petition  again  to  ,the  present]  ;  but,  in 
so  far  as  the  kingdom  of  God  appears  again  as  displaying  and  devel- 

*  Thduck  gives  it  the  signification,  "  to  treat  as  holy,"  "  to  keep  holy,"  which  supposes, 
however,  "  a  being  holy,"  if  it  is  to  be  real.  It  seems,  therefore,  more  natural  to  under- 
stand it  in  this  place  as  denoting  the  cause,  rather  than  the  consequence. 

f  That  God  be  honoured  should  be  the  Christian's  first  desire.  God  is  not  for  the  sake 
of  man,  but  is  God  of  and  for  himself.  The  name  of  God,  Jehovah,  designates  his  self-ex- 
istence. Before  asking  God's  grace  toward  us,  we  must  first  of  all  acknowledge  him  as 
the  being  who  owes  nothing  to  us,  and  to  whom  we  owe  all — as  God. — [B. 


MATTHEW  VI.  7-13.  321 


oping  itself,  Christ  subjoins,  in  the  third  petition, 
fid  oov  K.  r.  A.,  thy  will  be  done,  etc.,  in  order  to  express  the  consum- 
mation of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  consists  in  the  unlimited  fulfil- 
ment of  God's  will  ;  so  that  the  three  petitions  stand  related  to  each 
other  as  beginning,  end,  and  middle.  The  words  "  as  in  heaven,  so  in 
earth/'  express  the  unqualified  fulfilment  of  the  will,  which  now  ap- 
pertains to  the  heavenly  state  only,  but  which,  in  the  consumma- 
tion, is  to  extend  to  earthly  things  also. 

In  the  second  half  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  subjective  distance 
from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  steps  of  approach  to  it,  are  ap- 
prehended and  described  with  the  supplementary  thought,  "  That  it 
may  be  so,  give  us  daily  the  bread  of  life."  That  apro^,  bread,  does 
not  denote  bodily  food  merely,  is  seen  from  the  context  ;  it  stands 
among  purely  spiritual  petitions,  and  supposes  spiritually-disposed 
petitioners.*  True,  the  suppliant  should  set  out  from  his  physical 
existence,  and  ascend  to  what  is  higher  ;  for  which  reason  the  refer- 
ence to  bodily  nourishment.;  on  which  the  existence  of  the  whole 
man  depends,  should  not  be  excluded,  nay,  it  may  even  be  regarded 
as  the  immediate  one  ;  but  the  spiritual  food  must  still  be  looked 
upon  as  included,  since  otherwise  the  important  petition  for  the 
Spirit  of  God  would  be  entirely  wanting  in  the  prayer.  (On  apro?, 
as  spiritual  food  to  man,  as  a  spirit,  see  Matth.  iv.  4  ;  John  vi.  32, 
compared  with  41,  48,  50,  51.  —  The  word  imovaios,  which  occurs 
nowhere  else,  is  difficult.f  Some  derive  it  from  the  particle  imovaa, 
which  is  used  like  sequens  [Acts  vii.  26  ;  xvi.  11  ;  xxi.  18  ;  xxiii. 
11},  particularly  in  the  phrase  ?/juepa  i-movaa  =  nh»,  which,  accord- 
ing to  Jerome,  was  used  in  this  passage  in  the  Ev.  sec.  Hebr.  [Comm. 
in  Matth.  ad  loc\.  But  this  interpretation,  which  Dr.  Paulus  ex-. 
tends  even  to  the  future  in  general,  is  in  contradiction  to  Matth.  vi. 
34,  where  care  for  the  morrow  is  forbidden.  In  that  case  the  con- 
nexion of  crjfiepov  with  tmovmog  is  inappropriate.  Others  more  cor- 
rectly derive  it  from  ovaia£  in  the  sense  of  substantialis  —  so  that  the 
term  is  meant  to  define  the  bread  more  accurately  in  its  nature, 
nourishment  for  the  true  being  of  man  —  or  what  is  sufficient  for  ex- 
istence —  what  is  enough.  Thus  Tholuck.) 

In  the  consciousness  of  the  dependence  of  spiritual  and  bodily 
life  on  God  and  his  preserving  power,  the  consciousness  of  guilt  is 

*  As  heaven,  where  angels  perfectly  fulfil  the  will  of  God,  stands  separated  from 
earth,  where  we  still  dwell  in  a  state  of  expectancy,  we  need  for  our  earthly  life,  earthly, 
daily  bread.  It  is  better  to  refrain  from  spiritualizing  the  simple  sense  of  the  prayer.  —  [E. 

f  Origen  (de  Orat,  p.  94)  regards  it  as  a  word  coined  by  the  Evangelist  himself,  with- 
out giving  an  etymology.  The  derivation  from  the  participle  is  admissible  after  the  ana- 
logy of  TTepiovaiOf  fdeXovaioc.  But  it  may  be  derived  from  the  participle  of  elvai  as  well 
as  from  that  of  levai.  See  Tholuck  in  his  comm.  on  the  passage. 

\  The  word  is  not  ITTOVGIOG  but  iTriovatof,  being  derived  not  from  the  noun 
but  from  the  noun  ovaia  and  the  prep.  tiri.  —  [E. 

VOL.  I.—  21 


322  MATTHEW  VI.  7-13. 

implied,  which  is  expressed  in  the  fifth  petition,  and  from  which  the 
desire  proceeds  to  see  all  hindrances  arising  thence  taken  away  by 
forgiving  love.  That  the  prayer  is  that  of  a  believer,  is  evident 
from  "  as  we  also  forgive ;"  in  which  words  forgiveness  is  again  (see  v. 
7)  made  dependent  on  the  forgiving  love  in  the  heart,  which  alone 
permits  us  to  believe  in  forgiveness,  without  denying  that  this  love 
is  itself  the  gift  of  grace.*  The  idea  of  debt  is  taken  very  widely, 
comprehending  sin  in  general,  which,  even  in  believers,  contracts 
new  debts,  that  need  continual  forgiveness — i.  e.,  blotting  out.  See 
the  similes,  v.  25,  and  Luke  vii.  41,  ff.  ;  and  in  ver.  14,  immediately 
below.  A  lively  perception  of  sin  is  accompanied  by  a  sense  of 
weakness,  such  as  may  not  only  disobey  God's  command  occasionally, 
but  even  fall  from  it  altogether.  This  is  the  view  taken  in  the  sixth 
petition.  (On  Tteipd&iv,  see  note  on  Matth.  iv.  1.)  The  dangerous 
nature  of  temptation,  from  which  the  children  of  God  beg  to  be  de- 
livered, lies  in  the  disproportion  between  the  power  of  the  new  life, 
and  that  of  evil.  The  fear  of  God,  therefore,  in  the  believer  begs 
for  the  removal  of  the  cup.f  The  Saviour  having  been  already  led 
into  one  temptation  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  and  having 
overcome  it  to  the  saving  of  men,!  Prays  himself  (for  he  became  in 
all  things  like  us,  only  without  sin),  in  the  second  temptation,  at 
the  close  of  his  ministry  :  "  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me."  (Matth.  xxvi.  39.)  In  this  petition,  therefore,  the  assurance 

*  The  words,  "  as  we  also  forgive,"  must  not  be  understood  as  determining  the  mea- 
sure of  forgiveness ;  for  if  God  did  not  forgive  men  in  a  higher  degree  than  they  them- 
selves shew  forgiveness,  no  one  would  be  forgiven.  God  always  forgives  completely  and 
absolutely ;  while  man  oftentimes,  even  when  honestly  struggling,  can  forgive  partially 
only — that  is,  so  as  that  something  yet  remains  in  the  mind.  The  words  are  rather  to  be 
taken  as  a  proof  how  much  God  is  forgiving  love,  since  he  not  only  forgives  the  believer 
his  own  sin,  but  also  enables  him  to  forgive  others.  Being  able  to  forgive  others,  is  ac- 
cordingly a  token  to  the  believer  of  his  being  in  a  state  of  grace ;  and  the  petition  may 
therefore  be  thus  paraphrased :  "  Forgive  us  our  sins — that  is,  reveal  the  entire  fulness  of 
thy  forgiving  love  unto  us,  as  thou  givest  us  to  taste  it  in  this,  that  in  thy  power  we  can 
forgive."  Moreover,  we  must  not  overlook,  that  forgiving  sins  toward  man  is  alone  spoken 
of;  for  we  cannot  and  ought  not  to  forgive  sins  against  God.  Thus  David  forgives  Shimei's 
sin  against  himself,  but  on  his  deathbed  he  retains  the  sin  against  the  Lord;  and  thus 
does  the  Apostle  Paul  also,  according  to  2  Tim.  iv.  14-16. 

•j-  rie(pa<T/Mf,  temptation,  trial,  may  be  (a)  the  trial  to  which  God  puts  his  people  for 
their  good  (Rom.  v.  3 ;  James  i.  2-4 ;  1  Pet.  i.  6,  f.),  for  whose  removal  the  Christian  will 
not  pray  ;  (b)  temptations  of  personal  lust,  James  i.  12  ;  to  this  "  lead  us  not  into  temp- 
tation," is  not  applicable ;  (c)  the  malicious  assaults  of  Satan  from  which  God  preserves  us 
if  we  pray  to  him.  This  is  here  the  only  appropriate  meaning,  and  to  this  corresponds 
the  following,  "but  deliver  us,"  etc. — [E. 

J  See  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ii.  18 ;  ''  For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  be- 
ing tempted,  he  is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted."  And  again,  1  Cor.  x.  13,  were 
•xEipaa/ubc  dvGpwrtvof  seems  to  be  placed  in  contrast  with  another — namely,  6etof,  in 
which  God  himself,  as  in  the  cases  of  Abraham,  Job,  and  other  distinguished  believers, 
and  particularly  in  that  of  the  Saviour,  led  into  temptation ;  at  such  trials  nature  shudders. 
To  be  led  iuto  temptation  must,  however,  be  carefully  distinguished  from  presumptuous, 
determined  entering  into  it,  which  is  ono  with  tempting  God. 


MATTHEW  VI.  13-15.  323 

is  not  implied,  that  no  temptation  shall  happen  to  the  believer — 
rather,  as  our  Lord  drank  the  cup,  so  every  follower  must  drink  his 
cup  also.  (Matth.  xx.  23.) 

As  the  two  previous  petitions  referred  to  salvation  in  particular 
points,  so  finally,  the  seventh  petition  embraces  salvation  in  its  com- 
prehensive sense.*  As  the  whole  prayer  implies  a  community  of 
spirit  in  all  believers,  so,  at  the  close,  good  appears  in  contrast  with 
evil  itself;  by  the  overcoming  of  which  the  kingdom  of  God  attains 
its  consummation  and  further  temptation'  becomes  impossible. 
Hence,  the  aA/ta,  ~but,  in  contrast  with  the  previous  petition.  Wheth- 
er we  take  rov  Trovypov,  of  evil,  as  masculine  or  as  neuter,  is  indifferent, 
provided  the  neuter  is  regarded  as  including  all  that  is  wicked  and 
evil,  according  to  which  notion  it  is  Satan's  very  element.  The 
masculine  is,  however,  more  agreeable  to  Bible  usage.  (Matth.  xiii. 
19,  compared  with  ver.  38 ;  Ephes.  vi.  16  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  3.)  The 
petition  for  the  consummation  of  the  work  of  salvation  connects  itself 
with  the  beginning,  since  that  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  the  dox- 
ology,  though  not  uttered  by  our  Lord,  but  added  by  the  church  in 
the  Christian  spirit,  assures  to  us  the  fulfilment  of  all  that  has  been 
asked  by  the  consciousness  that  all  is  God's  ;  and,  consequently,  by 
means  of  this  highest  and  only  good,  all  good  is  as  certain  of  triumph 
as  the  evil  is  of  destruction.  At  first  sight,  however,  it  would  seem 
that  power  (dvvafiuf)  should  have  been  mentioned  before  kingdom 
(Paotteia),  as  being  the  more  general  idea,  by  the  instrumentality  of 
which  that  kingdom  is  realized.  But  this  order  was  probably  chosen 
for  this  reason,  that  it  is  not  the  divine  omnipotence  in  an  absolute 
sense  that  is  meant,  but  its  manifestation  in  the  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  which  the  whole  prayer  'presupposes.  Hence, 
the  doxology  being,  as  it  were,  an  assurance  of  the  certain  fulfilment 
of  the  prayer,  declares  very  appropriately,  first,  that  the  kingdom  is 
the  object  of  God's  desire — that  is,  its  realization  is  willed  by  God  ; 
then  that  his  power  carries  it  forward,  and  hence  will  assuredly 
bring  all  to  a  consummation. 

Ver.  14,  15. — The  subsequent  thoughts  are  in  Luke  (xi.  4,  ff.) 
more  immediately  connected  with  the  prayer.  Matthew  expands 
the  thought  in  ver.  12,  respecting  the  exercise  of  forgiveness,  in 
order  to  the  receiving  of  forgiveness,  with  which  the  closing  petition 
also  stands  connected,  inasmuch  as  salvation  is  a  comprehensive 
forgiveness,  of  which  only  the  forgiving  mind  is  a  fit  subject.  (A 
similar  thought  occurs  in  a  different  connexion  in  Matth.  xi.  25,  26.) 
The  difficulty  here  is  that  forgiveness  seems  to  be  made  dependent 
on  the  existence  of  love,  while  it  is  forgiveness  received  that  first 
produces  love  ;  see  note  on  Luke  vii.  47.  But  it  is  not  the  first 

*  Chrysostam,  the  theologians  of  the  Reformed  church,  the  Anninians,  the  Sociuians, 
and  others,  recognize  only  six  petitions,  as  they  join  the  tixth  and  seventh. 


824  MATTHEW  VI.  15-24. 

kindling  of  love  proceeding  from  forgiveness,  that  is  meant  (although 
the  very  reception  of  forgiveness  supposes  receptive  love) ;  but  the 
exercise  of  enkindled  love  in  particular  instances.  (nopaTTOjjua,  tres- 
pass, a  single  manifestation  of  the  general  dpapria,  sin.  It  is  = 
dpdpTr)fj.a,  Mark  iii.  28.  The  expression,  TTOTT/P  ovpdviog,  like  fiaothda 
r&v  ovpav&v,  is  peculiar  to  Matthew  ;  see  Matth.  vi.  26,  32  ;  xv.  13.) 

Ver.  16-18. — The  following  verses  are  parallel  with  ver.  2  and  5 
— a  renewed  exhortation  to  seek  for  the  reality  instead  of  the  ap- 
pearance. After  prayer  and  almsgiving,  fasting  is  taken  up  as  an- 
other manifestation  of  the  religious  life.  ('A0<m£o>  denotes  primarily 
"to  make  invisible,"  thence  "to  spoil,"  "to  destroy,"  as  ver.  19. 
Here,  "  to  disfigure" — the  Latin,  squalere.  To  sorrowing  negligence 
in  externals  is  opposed  joyful  attire,  denoted  by  anointing  (dAe«/>at), 
and  washing  (vtyai).  In  that  (apparently  open)  exhibition  of  the 
religious  life,  therefore,  hypocrisy  is  manifest,  which  might  be  er- 
roneously looked  for  in  this  (apparently  not  open)  concealment  of 
it ;  for  the  essence  of  piety  is  the  most  inward  reference  of  our  life 
to  God.  All  stealthy  glances  towards  the  external  are  the  fruit  of 
hypocrisy.  ('Ev  ro>  KPVTTT&,  in  secret,  is  opposed  to  being  open  before 
men.  It  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  the  inward  man,  to  whom  God 
reveals  himself.)  This  fundamental  thought,  that  God  himself 
must  be  the  end  of  human  striving,  extends  to  the  close  of  the 
chapter.  It  is  the  thread  by  which  the  different  thoughts  hang, 
which,  according  to  Luke,  stood  in  a  different  relation  to  Christ's 
discourses. 

Ver.  19-21. — Earthly  possessions  are  placed  in  contrast  with 
heavenly  ones  in  their  indestructible  nature,  and  the  spirit  is  directed 
thither — to  the  source  of  all  truth.  (2?fr,  tinea  —  e>&,  Isa.  li.  8.  Bpwerj? 
denotes  in  general  the  consuming  process  to  which  all  earthly  things 
are  subject.  The  meaning  "  rust"  does  not  suit ;  for  gold  and  silver 
do  not  rust.*  In  Mai.  iii.  11,  it  is  used  also  for  a  kind  of  worm.) 
The  union  of  the  heart  with  the  treasure  is  assigned  as  the  reason 
of  this  admonition  to  store  up  heavenly  possessions.  The  treasure 
is  regarded  as  the  aim  of  the  longing  and  desire  which  proceed  from 
the  heart.  The  concentrating  of  them  on  created  things  must  pro- 
duce misery,  since  the  soul  is  destined  for  what  is  eternal. 

Ver.  22-24. — Seeking  after  earthly  treasure  (which  is  so  very 
contrary  to  man's  inward  spiritual  nature)  implies,  therefore,  inward 
impurity.  The  connexion  with  the  preceding  context  is  not  alto- 
gether simple,  though  not  to  be  mistaken.  This  circumstance  indi- 
cates, doubtless,  a  different  original  position  of  the  thought.  (See 
Luke  xi.  34,  35.)  The  relations  of  our  spiritual  .life  are  illus- 
trated by  physical  ones.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  eye  should  be 
called  hv%vos ,  lamp.  It  seems  to  be  merely  the  capacity  of  receiving 
*  See,  however,  note  on  James  v.  3. 


MATTHEW  VI.  22-24.  325 

light.  But  capacity  to  receive  light  implies  a  partaking  in  the 
nature  of  light.  "  Were  not  thine  eye  sunny,"  says  Gothe,  with 
great  depth  and  truth,  "  how  could  it  ever  behold  the  sun  ?"  (See 
Psalm  xxxvi.  9.)  Thus  the  eye,  with  the  light  which  flows  to  it, 
is  that  which  itself  illuminates,  which  makes  light — a  view  which  is 
optically  true.*  The  condition  of  the  bodily  eye,  however,  modifies 
its  action  :  d-rrhovc;,  single — Trovrjpog  =  dnrkovg ,  double-sighted,  as  it 
were  (ver.  24),  or  even  totally  blind,  to  which  OKOTUVOV,  dark,  refers. 
Just  in  the  same  way  the  Saviour  views  the  spirit's  inward  eye — the 
reason — the  power  of  receiving  divine  things,  f  Its  capacity  for  the 
higher  light  implies  the  nature  of  light  in  it,  whence  $&$  KV  aoi  = 
hvx,vo$,  ver.  22.  Jesus  accordingly  does  not  teach  the  absolute 
moral  depravity  of  man-J  That  noble  power  destined  for  divine 
things,  when  drawn  away  to  what  is  sensual,  becomes  blindness. 
The  inward  light  is  dissipated,  and  the  power  of  sight  destroyed. 
Spiritual  darkness  then  is  more  fearful  than  bodily  blindness.  Luke, 
however  (xi.  36),  brings  out  the  other  and  opposite  result — that  is, 
the  entire  inward  illumination  of  our  being,  by  which  the  very  last 
traces  of  darkness  (jj>rj  £%ov  ri  pepog  GKOTMVOV)  vanish.  (On  the  spe- 
cial difficulties  in  the  passage,  see  note  on  Luke  xi.  36.)  This  is 
followed  immediately  by  the  mention  of  two  masters,  in  which  com- 
parison the  double-sightedness — glancing  stealthily  from  God  to  the 
world — is  expressed  in  another  wny.  The  appropriateness  of  the 
contrast  lies  in  the  completeness  with  which  the  one  excludes  the 
other.  The  relation  of  the  masters  to  each  other  does  not  allow  of 
indifference  among  the  servants.  Hate  ([tioelv'),  therefore,  stands 
opposed  to  love  (ayarrav),  and  despise  (Karafypovdv),  to  hold  fast 
(dvTKxeadat.)  ('AvTe%eadat  nvog,  properly  "to  seize  any  thing,"  "to 
hold  it  fast,"  =  p11!**,  thence  "to  pursue  any  thing  with  diligence 
and  interest,"  1  Thess.  v.  14  ;  Titus  i.  9.)  Majuwvaf,  or  Map^vd^ 
(according  to  Luke  xvi.  9),  from  iteia,  on  the  authority  of  JBuxtorf, 
(lex.  talm.,  p.  1217),  is  so  used  in  the  Targums  for  the  Hebrew  ysa, 
neb,  that  the  term  may  be  taken  as  equivalent  to  the  Greek  TT^OVTO^ 
wealth,  Augustine  observes  on  the  passage  :  "  Congruit  et  punicum 
nomen,  nam  lucrum  punice  Mammon  dicitur."  In  opposition  to 

*  Philo  expresses  the  same  thought  (de  vit.  theor.  ii.  482,  edit.  Mangey)  when  he 
says ;  f/  Beotyihrig  ipvx%  uduvara  inyova  TIKTEI,  Gireipavrog  elf  avTijv  UKTIVU^  vorjruf  rot 
irarpog,  alg  dvvTJaeTai  Oeupelv  TU  acxjiiaf  66-yfj.a.Ta.  (See  also  Gesenius  in  the  Lexicon,  s. »., 
hfc,  Job  xx.  9.) 

f  The  Reason,  provided  it  has  been  made  clear  and  pure,  can  receive  divine  things. 
It  has  a  receptive  faculty ;  but  it  cannot  originate  any  thing  divine  out  of  itself.  It  is 
carefully  to  be  distinguished  from  the  understanding — the  faculty  of  ideas.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  former  is  vovi;,  the  latter  (j>p6vTjat(.  (See  the  author's  Opuscula,  p.  152,  sq.) 
Philo  de  cond.  mundi,  t.  i.,  p.  12,  says :  onep  voiif  ev  ifrvxy,  TOVTO  6<l>8a^bf  £v  a6fj.ari. 

\  The  "  absolute  moral  depravity  of  man,"  is  a  subject  which  our  Saviour  lias  not 
here  under  consideration.  The  strongest  afflrmers  of  that  depravity  yet  admit  man's 
possession  of  the  natural  faculties  for  apprehending  moral  truth. — [K. 


326  MATTHEW  VI.  24-27. 

God,  money,  when  personified,  appears  as  an  idol,  after  the  manner 
of  Plutus,  without  our  being  able  to  shew  that  an  idol  of  this  name 
was  outwardly  worshipped.  In  the  Saviour's  meaning,  the  name 
Mammon  applies  to  the  author  of  evil,  which  consists  precisely  in 
confounding  what  is  not  divine  with  what  is.  Evil  we  must  hate 
(Bom.  xii.  9)  if  we  are  to  love  good.  The  natural  man,  from  the 
fear  of  encountering  the  world,  where  good  and  evil  are  found  mixed, 
endeavours  to  avoid  this  alternative  ;  but  Christ  compels  a  decision 
of  the  heart  to  pure  love,  which  gives  at  once  sincere  hatred  against 
sin,  never  against  the  person  of  the  sinner. 

Ver.  25-34. — The  Saviour  raises  man,  involved  in  his  common 
earthly  wants,  and  wasting  his  poor  existence  in  the  anxious  satisfy- 
ing of  them,  from  subjection  to  the  prince  of  this  world,  who 
occupies  his  slaves  with  such  cares,  to  faith  in  God,  which  gives 
birth  to  a  holy  care  that  dispels  those  grovelling  vexations  of  our 
daily  life.  The  passage,  Phil.  iv.  6,  is  a  commentary  on  these 
words.  In  it  the  Apostle  puts  the  command  :  p/dev  nepifivare,  be 
anxious  for  nothing,  in  contrast  with  the  direction  to  ask  of  God 
what  is  needful.  Prayer  is,  therefore,  the  opposite  of  anxious  care, 
because  in  prayer  man  commits  the  care  to  God.  The  natural  man 
cares  without  praying.  The  brute,  and  the  man  who  has  become 
as  the  brute,  care  as  little  as  they  pray. — Ver.  25.  The  discourse 
turns  on  the  double  meaning  of  V^OT  =  *??.»  which  denotes,  1,  life; 
2,  soul.  Viewed  in  their  essence,  the  two  meanings  involve  each 
other  ;  but  the  carnal  man  places  the  principle  of  life  in  the 
flesh,  and  regards  eating  and  drinking  as  its  chief  requirements. 
For  the  believer,  the  life  of  man,  as  such,  is  in  the  soul,  and  the 
soul  alone  is  to  him  the  principle  of  life  (that  is,  the  ^>v^r\  viewed  as 
V>V%T/  TtvevpaTiKrty,  and,  consequently,  he  provides  for  it  chiefly.  The 
words  :  \tspi\Lvav  rjj  -^vxfi,  are  not,  therefore,  equivalent  to  h  rq 
^v^y  =  napdia ;  but  i/>t%?7  is  the  object  of  care — the  psychical  life. — 
Ver.  26.  Faith  in  God's  fatherly  care  for  the  nourishing  of  the 
body  is  awakened  by  a  view  of  his  procedure  in  nature.  (Uereivd 
TOV  ovpavov  =  tptown  t^y.  The  general  expression  is,  in  Luke  xii. 
24,  made  special  :  KaTavoijoare  TOVS  Kopawa^.)  Man  stands  con- 
nected with  physical  nature  by  his  body,  and  may,  therefore,  trust 
himself  to  fatherly  love  in  reference  to  that,  as  unreservedly  as  the 
birds  of  heaven.  But  since  a  divine  principle  of  life  reigns  in  his 
physical  being,  this  bears  him  to  a  higher  region  of  life. 

Ver.  27. — The  helplessness  of  the  creature  in  all  that  is  external 
is  viewed  in  contrast  with  the  fulness  of  the  Creator's  power,  who 
daily  nourishes  all  beings.  Man  cannot  make  a  single  blade  grow, 
nay,  he  cannot  make  any  physical  change  in  himself.  ('HAt/aa  is 
primarily  "  size  of  body,"  "  stature"  [Luke  xix.  3],  then  "  age"  [John 


4 

MATTHEW  VI.  27-30.  327 

ix.  21.]*  To  add  a  cubit  to  the  stature  would  be  something  mon- 
strous in  proportion  to  the  body,  which  does  not  exceed  three  cubits 
in  height.  From  the  connexion,  something  small  is  intended  here. 
Better,  therefore,  "  to  add  a  little  to  the  age."  The  *care  for  eating 
and  drinking — the  conditions  of  physical  life — is  an  agreement  with 
this. — Ver.  28.  The  same  applies  to  raiment.  (Kpivov  =  i»?«i,  Song 
of  Sol.  ii.  1,  lily.  Nf/flw,  neo,  filum  ducere.) — Ver.  29.  The  forma- 
tions of  nature  exceed  in  beauty  all  the  formations  of  art.  Art, 
therefore,  can  only  try  to  imitate  nature — a  powerful  motive  to  un- 
reserved confidence  in  the  wondrous  Framer  of  the  universe,  in 
whose  kingdom  the  greatest  and  the  least  appear  clothed  in  the 
most  splendid  dress. 

Ver.  30. — If  God  thus  cares  for  what  is  most  perishable,  how 
much  more  for  the  heirs  of  his  eternal  kingdom  !  (In  regions  where 
wood  is  scarce,  as  generally  in  the  East,  the  use  of  other  substances, 
as  grass  and  brushwood,  for  burning,  is  the  natural  result  of  cir- 
cumstances. 'O/UyoTuarof  =  FIJIAN  •ptaj?,  Matth.  viii.  26  ;  xiv.  31  ; 
xvi.  8.) — Ver.  32.  Hence  is  deduced  the  prohibition  of  care  for  the 
physical  necessities  of  life  ;  and  that  care  is  represented  as  rooted  in 
heathenism,  where,  instead  of  the  living  God  who  knows  (ver.  8), 
we  meet  with  a  blind  fate  (elfjtapfiEvr^  which  compels  man  to  be  his 
own  God. — In  ver.  33  and  34  the  noble  and  freely  expressed  thought, 
that  the  believing  child  of  God  is  not  careful,  is  qualified  in  order 
to  prevent  the  mistaken  idea  that  the  prohibition  of  care  is  to  de- 
stroy all  exertion  foryearthly  things.  ZTfrelv,  seek,  is  contrasted  with 
fiepipvdv,  be  anxious,  so  that  the  latter  signifies  anxiously  caring 
without  God,f  the  former  striving  in  faith  in  God  and  with  God. 
(Luke,  however  [xii.  29],  uses  ^rjreiv  as  synonymous  with  nepifivdv,) 
tLp&rw,  first,  gives  the  first  rank  to  striving  for  the  kingdom  of  God, 
to  which  the  striving  for  earthly  things  is  subordinate.  For  God's 
fatherly  care  is  manifested  by  the  believer  himself ;  he  does  not  ex- 
pect in  a  spirit  of  tempting  God,  to  be  supported  on  air.  The 
"  kingdom  of  God"  is  again  to  be  taken  in  its  large  and  indefinite 
sense,  as  comprehending  what  is  external  and  internal  (see  note  on 
Matth.  iii.  2),  as  also  the  righteousness,  which,  though  in  itself  an 
essential  feature  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (Rom.  xiv.  17),  is  yet  here 
specially  noticed,  in  order  to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  whether  inwardly  or  outwardly  manifested,  and  to  guard 

*  In  use  the  reverse:  primarily  time  of  life,  age,  then  stature. — [K. 

f  Luke  (xii.  29)  subjoins  the  admonition:  HTJ  /lETeupifrade,  which  word  does  not 
occur  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  is  often  found,  as  well 
as  fttTEupof,  and  the  derivatives,  fie~eupia/n6f,  ^erewpor^f,  in  the  sense  of  being  lofty, 
proud.  (Psalm  cxxxi.  1;  Ezek.  x.  16,  17;  2  Mace.  v.  17  ;  vii.  34.)  In  the  sense  of 
suspenso  esse  animo,  "  filled  with  hope  and  fear" — a  sense  not  uncommon  in  profane  wri- 
ters— it  occurs  only  in  this  passage.  The  pefiawTTis  of  marif  stands  opposed  to  the 
fj.epLfj.va. 


* 
328  MATTHEW  VI.  34 ;  VII.  1,  2. 

against  false  conceptions.  The  term  TT  p  o  s  redi]aerai,  shall  be  added, 
points  to  the  divine  as  the  immediate  and  proper  object  of  all  man's 
endeavours,  with  which  temporal  blessings  are  associated  subordi- 
nately,  and  necessarily,  if  the  endeavour  after  God  be  pure.  Hence 
the  exhortation  closes  with  the  words  with  which  it  began  :  ft?) 
fjiepifjivrlorjre,  ver.  25.  The  words  dq  rrjv  avpiov,  for  the  morrow,  do 
indeed  seem  to  limit  the  universality  of  the  exhortation,  and  to  de- 
scribe the  care  for  the  present  as  well  founded.  But  in  the  idea  of 
care  a  reference  to  the  future  is  always  included,  and  the  present 
appears  as  provided  for,  as  is  seen  in  the  succeeding  context ;  con- 
sequently the  requirement  not  to  care,  should  be  maintained  to  its 
full  extent  (see  1  Peter  v.  7);  but  as  was  observed,  without  thereby 
excluding  truly  believing  exertion.  The  words  immediately  follow- 
ing :  f)  yap  avpiov  fiepi^vrjaei  rd  iavrrjs,  for  the  morrow  will  take 
thought,  etc.,  confirm  this  view  ;  for  in  them  God  is  represented 
as  he  who  takes  thought,  since  time  itself,  to  which  taking  thought 
is  ascribed,  must  be  viewed  in  its  dependence  on  him,  by  whom 
every  need  is  supplied  for  every  circumstance.  Lastly,  the  Saviour 
notices  that,  even  apart  from  lading  himself  with  care  for  the 
future,  the  life  of  the  believer  in  the  present  retains  its  burden  be- 
cause of  the  sin  of  the  world  ;  so  that  the  taking  no  tliouglit  urged 
upon  us,  cannot  be  exemption  from  suffering.  (Kaitia  is  purposely 
used,  as  it  expresses  physical  ills,  but  in  their  moral  origin.  'Ap/cero^ 
occurs  also  Matth.  x.  25  ;  1  Peter  iv.  3.)  As  regards  the  critical 
state  of  the  verse,  the  Codd.  vary  in  the  words  :  77  yap  avpiov 
fj^pifMv^aei  rd  t-at/rf/f,  as  some  omit  rd  Eavrfjg ;  others  only  rd ;  while 
some  give  irepl  tavrjjg  or  tavrq.  The  various  readings  do  not  alter 
the  meaning  essentially;  but  the  usual  construction  of  fieptpvdv 
is  with  the  accusative  ; — we  might,  therefore,  prefer  Eavrfa  as 
the  less  common.  It  is  more  important  to  notice  a  punctuation 
different  from  the  ordinary  one,  which  Fritzsche  (comment,  in 
Matth.  p.  284),  has  adopted  in  the  text :  ufj  ovv  nepifivfjarjre  elg  rrjv 
avpiov  rj  ydp  avpiov  fj£pi/j,vfjO'Ki.  Td  iavrfjg  dpKerbv  ry  rjnepa  rj  Kaicia 
avrrjg,  Be  not  anxious  for  the  morrow;  for  the  morrow  will  be 
anxious.  What  belongs  to  itself,  its  own  evil,  suffices  for  the  day. 
'H  Kania  avrrjs  is  then  taken  as  in  opposition  with  rd  iavrjjg.  This 
punctuation  seems  to  me  worthy  of  regard  ;  only  the  words  :  rj  ydp 
avpiov  nepipvijaKi,  produce,  perhaps,  the  impression  of  a  defective 
construction  ;  the  words  subjoined  give  more  completeness  to  the 
thought.  The  thought,  however,  is  not  essentially  altered  by  this 
punctuation. 

Ver.  1,  2. — [With  decision  in  striving  after  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  with  strictness  towards  ourselves,  we  must  combine  mildness 
towards  others.  The  way  to  righteousness  consists  not  in  discover- 
ing others'  sins,  but  our  own.  He  then  who  does  this  must  feel 


MATTHEW  VII.  2-6.  329 

constrained  to  ask  divine  assistance  (ver.  7-12.)  To  relations  of 
union  with  God  corresponds  provident  conduct  towards  men  (v.  12— 
20).  That  Matthew  (ch.  vii.)  has  not  arbitrarily  put  together  un- 
connected matter  is  shewn  by  the  parallel  passage  of  Luke  vi.  37, 
ff.]  The  thought  is  expressed  more  fully  in  Luke  vi.  37,  38  ;  there 
is  something  similar  in  Mark  iv.  24.  Kpivetv,  icpipa,  judge,  judgment, 
is  in  Matthew  evidently  =  KaraKpiveiv,  KaraKpifj,a,  condemn,  etc.,  in 
which  sense  they  occur,  Kom.  ii.  1 ;  xiv.  3,  4 ;  1  Cor.  v.  12,  and 
frequently.  This  is  seen  from  the  parallel  word,  Karadiitd&tv,  con- 
demn, used  by  Luke,  which  defines  npiveiv,  and  from  the  contrast 
between  drroiveiv  and  didovai  in  Luke  vi.  37  ;  the  former  of  which 
expressions  denotes  "  acquittal  by  the  court"  (absolvere  reum;)  the 
latter,  the  "  remission  of  what  might  be  legally  demanded."  Judg- 
ing, therefore,  so  far  as  it  is  testing,  is  not  here  forbidden  ;  that  is 
always  required  by  Scripture.  (1  Thess.  v.  21.)  That  state  of 
mind  is  forbidden  in  which,  forgetting  his  own  sin,  man  condemns 
the  sins  of  others,  thus  assuming  the  place  of  a  holy  G6d,  and  hence 
also  judges  falsely  and  perversely,  rejecting  the  sinner  with  the  sin. 
The  phrase  :  "  With  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured 
to  you  again,"  is  equivalent  to  :  "  An  eye  for  an  eye,"  Matth.  v. 
38.  The  nature  of  overflowing,  forgiving  love,  which  prepares  us  in 
turn  to  receive  forgiveness,  is  described  by  figure  in  Luke  vi.  38. — 
(MfcVpov  nakbv  =  licavov,  a  just  measure,  not  falsified;  me&,  to  press 
together;  oakevu,  to  shake  and  move  to  and  fro,  in  order  to  force 
as  much  as  possible  into  the  measure  ;  ^nspocgitpquai  =  p-a;n,  Joel 
ii.  24,  the  overflowing  of  the  filled-up  measure — all  in  contrast  to 
giving  without  love,  which  is  done  to  avoid  a  direct  violation  of  the 
law.  KO/ITTO^  =  p^h,  sinus,  the  lap  of  the  flowing  dress  for  receiving 
any  thing — a  figure  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament.  'Avranodovvai 
d$  rov  noXnov,  Jer.  xxxii.  18  ;  Psalm  Ixxix.  12,  for  "  to  recompense/') 

Ver.  3-5. — The  next  verses  carry  out,  in  detail,  the  same  thought 
which  has  just  been  viewed  in  its  relation  to  the  whole  character. 
Uncharitableness  sees  the  faults  of  others,  while  it  overlooks  its 
own  ;  pure  love  overlooks  those  of  others,  and  watches  sharply  its  own. 
The  same  figure  is  found  in  the  tract  Bdba  Bathra: — Cum  diceret 
quis  alicui,  ejice  festucam  ex  oculo  tuo,  respondit  ille;  ejice  et  tu 
trabem  ex  oculo  tuo.  To  have  a  splinter  in  one's  eye  is  conceivable  ; 
to  have  a  beam,  not.  But  to  have  a  beam  in  one's  eye  without  ob- 
serving it,  is  certainly  an  image  of  the  wildest  self-delusion. 

Ver.  6. — These  exhortations  to  gentleness  are  followed  very  ap- 
propriately by  the  command  to  beware  of  the  other  extreme — that 
is,  an  indiscriminate  pouring  out  of  holy  things  from  want  of  judg- 
ment. He  who  forbids  our  judging  (which  decides  man's  culpabil- 
ity), commands  us  to  form  an  opinion  (Avhich  marks  only  the  state.} 
This  latter  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  child  of  God,  in  order  to 


330  MATTHEW  VII.  6-12. 

distinguish  the  false  from  the  true.  (Kvve$,  %oipoi,  dogs,  swine, 
denote  the  common  natural  condition,  which  shews  itself  in  shame- 
lessness,  carnality,  and  lust ;  these  things  the  Christian  must  know  as 
such,  and  not  bring  what  is  holy  into  contact  with  them  ;*  for  their 
internal  condition  does  not  admit  of  their  receiving  it,  and  it  reacts 
destructively  on  himself.  "A.yiov,  iiapyapi-ai,  holy,  pearls,  denote  the 
holy  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  [Matth.  xiii.  45.]  For  such 
men  the  law  alone  is  fit ;  the  Gospel  they  misunderstand  to  the  in- 
jury of  those  who  proclaim  it  to  them.  In  dog-like  natures,  holy 
things  excite  rage,  and  swinish  natures  tread  them  without  thought 
into  the  mire,  which  is  their  element.) 

Ver.  7-12. — Prayer  for  the  Holy  Ghost  alone  leads  to  the  at- 
tainment of  such  a  life  of  love  as  does  not  condemn,  and  yet  care- 
fully judges.  [Such  prayer  itself  then  marks  the  direct  opposite  of 
the  dog-like  dispositions  which  repel  what  is  holy.]  The  general 
maxim  :  "  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you,"  repeated  in  different 
forms,  is  exemplified  by  a  similitude,  which  reasons  from  the  less  to 
the  greater. — Ver.  8  proves  ver.  7,  from  the  general  thought : 
"  Every  one  that  asketh,  receiveth."  The  demonstrative  force  lies 
in  the  nature  of  him  to  whom  the  prayer  is  addressed.  Every  prayer 
which  is  really  such — that  is,  which  flows  from  the  inward  necessity 
of  the  soul,  God  answers.  The  human  relation  between  the  father 
and  the  supplicating  child  forms  an  argument  ad  hominem.  Luke 
(xi.  12)  adds  a  third  case  :  "  Instead  of  an  egg,  a  scorpion."  Here, 
to  the  idea  of  what  is  useless  is  added  that  of  something  repulsive 
and  frightful.  The  transition :  /}  rig  eanv,  gives  emphasis  to  the 
opposition:  "or  does  it  ever  happen  otherwise?"  In  comparison 
with  God,  the  eternal  good,  men,  in  their  sinful  alienation,  appear 
as  evil  (Trovqpoi  •)  in  the  relation  of  parental  love,  kindness  still  man- 
ifests itself  in  the  midst  of  sin,  how  much  more  in  the  eternal  God! 
Luke  (xi.  13)  calls  the  gift,  which  includes  all  other  gifts,  expressly 
the  TrvEvpa  dyiov,  Holy  Spirit,  who  must  be  understood  there  as  the 
creative  principle  of  holiness  in  man.  In  this  Spirit  we  exercise 
pure  love. — The  maxim  in  ver.  12  is  also  based  on  proverbs  current 
among  the  Jewish  people.  In  the  Talmud  :  "  Quod  exosum  est  tibi, 
alteri  nefeceris,"  lohat  is  offensive  to  thee,  do  not  to  another,  stands 
as  one  of  Hillel's  sayings.  Love  for  ourselves  should  give  the  rule 
of  our  self-sacrificing  love  for  our  neighbour  (Matth.  xix.  19);  only 

*  Dogs  (Kvvsf)  denote  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  not  the  common  state  of  na- 
ture, but  obduracy  and  positive  and  fierce  hatred  of  the  Gospel  (Phil  iii.  2  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  22 ; 
Rev.  xxii.  15,  comp.  Ps.  Ixxx.  14.)  In  like  manner  swine  (comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  22  with  Ps. 
Ixxx.  14),  is  an  image  not  of  natural  carnality,  but  of  that  gross  and  obstinate  sluggishness 
which  can  make  no  use  of  what  is  holy  but  to  defile  it.  To  Mary  Magdalene  and  a 
publican,  the  Gospel  may  and  should  be  preached,  but  the  Christian  must  be  able  to 
discriminate  such  characters  from  the  dogs  and  the  swine.  For  the  latter  the  only  fea- 
sible attempt  to  save  is  excommunication. — [E. 


MATTHEW  VII.  12-20.  331 

God  is  to  be  loved  above  ourselves.  Instead  of  ovrog  ecmv  6  vofioc;, 
as  Griesbach  reads,  Fritzsche  would  read  ovrw^ ;  but,  apart  from 
critical  reasons,  ovrog  should  be  preferred  on  account  of  the  deeper 
thought  which  it  expresses,  that  in  this  command  of  love  toward 
our  neighbour,  the  essential  import  of  the  Old  Testament  is  included. 
(Mark  xii.  29,  ff.;  Matth.  xxii.  40.) 

Ver.  13, 14. — From  what  has  been  said,  follows  naturally  the  diffi- 
culty of  a  walk  in  self-denying  love,  being  represented  under  the 
figure  of  a  narrow  path,  which  conducts  through  a  narrow  gate  into 
the  strong  citadel  of  eternal  life.  The  figure  is  so  natural,  so  true, 
that  it  is  repeated  in  every  earnest  attempt,  even  in  subordinate 
stages  of  religious  life.  Cebetis  tab.  c.  12,  ovtcovv  6pa$  dvpav  nva 
[uicpav,  Koi  666v  rtva  rrpb  rift  dvpag,  r\~ri<;  ov  TTO^V  6%helTcu,  d/lAa  Travv 
dkiyoi  TTOpevovrai,  avrt]  earlvrj  ddbg^r/  ayovoa  rrpbg  rrjv  dA??&V7?v  naideiav. 
(The  parallel  passage,  Luke  xiii.  24,  will  subsequently  receive  a 
special  explanation.  For  on,  ver.  14,  we  should  undoubtedly  read 
ri ;  it  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  ma.) 

Ver.  15-20. — Yet  is  the  way  of  the  pure  life  in  Grod  not  merely 
narrow  in  itself,  it  is  rendered  still  more  difficult  by  the  teachings 
of  false  prophets.  Here  we  are  required  to  try  the  spirits.  The 
fruits  are  assigned  as  the  test.  In  1  John  iv.  1,  2,  pure  doctrine  is 
mentioned  as  the  criterion.  Is  this  meant  here,  too,  by  the  term 
fruits?  I  doubt  it  ;  though  Tholuck  has  defended  that  view  with 
specious  reasons.  The  doctrines  stand  first ;  they  might  well  be 
compared  to  the  root,  but  not  to  the  fruits.  The  fruits  are  neces- 
sarily of  a  moral  nature.  It  is  certainly  difficult  to  distinguish 
between  the  real  fruits,  and  the  counterfeits  of  hypocrisy  and 
fanaticism  ;  but  the  Saviour  supposes  in  his  people  a  simple  sense 
of  truth,  that  separates  the  true  and  the  false  with  certainty.  [Yet 
they  include  not  merely  the  life  of  the  individual,  but  the  conse- 
quences of  a  system.  A.  school,  sect,  creed,  that  rejects  the  laws  of 
Christian  morality,  and  defends  sin  on  theory,  or  that  makes  its 
theories  an  idol  before  which  the  ten  commandments  must  bow 
down,  proves  itself  radically  false.]  The  sheep's  clothing  is,  of 
course,  not  of  the  actual  prophetic  dress  (Matth.  iii.  4),  but  denotes 
figuratively,  the  outward  show,  in  opposition  to  the  true  nature — 
sayings  and  doings  apparently  full  of  love,  which  are  the  offspring  of 
a  selfish  heart.  The  wolf's  nature  seeks  its  own,  and  soon  betrays 
itself  to  the  child-like  sense.  By  the  processes  of  the  vegetable 
world,  we  are  shewn  how  the  fruit  characterizes  the  nature  of  that 
which  produces  it.  The  figure  is  similar  in  James  iii.  11.  ("Atcavda, 
thorn-bush.  Virg.  Ed.,  iv.  29  :  "  Incultisne  rubens  pendebit  sen- 
tibus  uva  ?"  ["A/cavfla,  nts«,  buck-thorn,  with  fruits  like  grapes  but 
disagreeable.  TpifioXog,  -n-n,  perhaps  the  Opuntien  cactus  (Indian 
fig-tree),  which  produces  fruit  similar  to  the  fig,  but  worthless.  And 


382  MATTHEW  VII.  20-23. 

as  both  deceive  by  their  fruits,  so  still  more  by  their  splendid  blos- 
soms, while  that  of  the  vine  is  unpretentious,  that  of  the  fig,  hidden.] 
— See  Matth.  xii.  33  for  the  same  figure  rather  differently  carried 
out,  as  also  Luke  vi.  45,  which  passage  will  be  explained  with  the 
former.  On  ver.  19,  20,  see  note  on  Matth.  iii.  10  ;  Luke  iii.  9. 

Ver.  21-23. — These  verses  make  a  special  application  of  what 
was  observed  of  all  false  prophets  generally,  to  those  who  are  con- 
nected with  Christ,  among  whom  insincerity  may  creep  in.  Aeyeiv 
is  opposed  to  noielVj  as  hoyog  to  epyov,  or  dvva^.  (1  John  iii.  18  ; 
Col.  ii.  23  ;  1  Thess.  i.  5  ;  James  i.  22.)  To  say  Lord,  Lord  (Aeyetv 
Kvpie,  ftvpie),  signifies  pretending  to  an  attachment  which  is  not  felt 
in  reality.  According  to  ver.  22,  the  foundation  of  this  devotion  ap- 
pears to  be  spiritual  vanity,  which  was  nourished  by  the  conspicuous 
exhibitions  of  the  Spirit's  power,  which  were  imparted  even  to  a 
Judas,  along  with  his  confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  To 
prophesy — to  cast  out  devils — to  do  Avonderful  works,  are  the  most 
common  operations  of  spiritual  power,  which,  in  the  time  of  Jesus, 
was  so  mightily  exerted — their  nature  we  shall  afterwards  consider 
more  precisely  in  their  individual  manifestations.*  By  the  words  : 
in  thy  name  (ro5  o&  dvopari),  we  must  understand  not  merely  a  su- 
perstitious pronouncing  of  the  name,  as  was  the  case  with  the  sons 
of  Sceva  (Acts  xix.  13,  if.) ;  but  a  receiving  of  the  power  of  the 
Lord — yet  without  true  spirituality.  (On  ovo/m,  see  note  on  Luke  i 
49  ;  and  again  on  Matth.  x.  41 ;  xxviii.  19.)  By  the  words  :  "  in  that 
day,"  the  revealing  of  the  hypocrisy,  unperceived  by  human  eyes,  is 
postponed  to  the  time  of  the  general  judgment,  when  every  secret 
must  be  made  manifest.  (Bom.  ii.  16.)  Hypocrisy,  therefore,  ap- 
pears, here,  as  at  the  same  time  self-deception,  in  consequence  of 
which  a  man  persuades  himself  that  he  belongs  to  the  Lord,  till  the 
discovery  of  the  depths  of  the  heart  brings  him  to  feel,  that  what 
he  deemed  his  holy  actions  were  a  great  violation  of  God's  law 
(dvofj-ia),  because  his  final  aim  in  them  was  constantly  his  own,  not 
God's  glory.  That  we  are  not  to  conceive  of  any  exchange  of  words 
on  the  day  of  judgment,  is  self-evident.  The  situation  here  so 
vividly  portrayed  is  the  language  of  fact;  the  unbeliever  will  stand 
beseeching,  but  will  be  refused.  (The  words :  aTro^wpeire,  «.  r.  A., 
[depart,  etcJ],  are  from  Psalm  vi.  8.)  The  solution  of  this  psycholo- 
gical enigma — the  possibility  of  such  self-deception,  is  contained  in 
the  words  :  I  never  knew  you,  ver.  22.  TIVUOKEIV,  know,  like  s?;,  is 
used  in  the  Scriptures  in  a  deep  spiritual  sense,  particularly  in  the 
phrases  :  "  God,  Christ  knows  man,  the  soul."  (Deiit.  xxxiv.  10  ; 
1  Cor.  viii.  3  ;  xiii.  12  ;  Gal.  iv.  9.)  Knowing  God  is  connected 
with  being  known  by  God  as  the  consequence ;  no  one  can  know, 
without  being  known  of,  God.  If  we  connect'  these  expressions  with 

*  On  these  gifts,  see  the  detailed  remarks  on  1  Cor.  xii.  and  xiv. 


MATTHEW  VII.  23-27.  333 

the  Christian  doctrine  of  regeneration,  the  rich  import  of  this  con- 
trast is  evolved.  The  genuine  knowledge  of  God — not  a  merely  no- 
tional knowledge,  but  that  essential  knowledge  which  is  eternal  life 
itself  (John  xvii.  3) — becomes  possible  only  by  a  revelation  of  the  hid- 
den God  to  the  soul  (see  note  on  Matth.  xi.  27)  ;  God's  thus  reveal- 
ing himself  is  a  knowing  of  the  soul  (yivuafceiv  rrjv  ^VXTJV'),  The 
figure  of  a  bridal  relation  of  the  soul  to  God,  which  pervades  the 
entire  Scriptures,  thus  acquires  its  essential  import ;  the  inward 
illumination  of  the  soul  is  like  a  visit  from  the  heavenly  bridegroom, 
by  whose  agency,  the  knowledge  of  God  results  to  the  soul,  accord- 
ing to  the  Old  Testament  expression  :  "  In  his  light  we  see  light," 
Psalm  xxxvi.  9.  Those  who  say,  "  Lord,  Lord,"  are,  therefore,  un- 
regenerated  men,  who,  with  a  false  liberty,  behave  themselves  as 
children  of  God,  without  having  been  begotten  of  him.  The  phrase  : 
"whence  ye  are" (rrodev  t-trre),  in  Luke  xiii.  25,  is  therefore,  very  signifi- 
cant. It  marks  their  foreign  origin  ;  they  are  not  from  above,  (avw0ev, 
John  iii.  3)  ;  they  are  oatf  EK  rrjg  oaptcog,  flesh  of  the  flesh  (John  iii. 
6).  In  Luke  xiii.  25-27,  the  elements  of  this  passage  are  found  in 
a  different  connexion,  in  which  they  will  be  considered  hereafter. 

Ver.  24-27. — The  epilogue  teaches  the  importance  of  applying  a 
discourse  like  this,  under  the  figure  of  a  man  who  builds  on  a  rocky 
foundation,  and  sets  forth  as  the  rock  of  salvation,  the  Word  of 
eternal  truth  which  was  embodied  in  Christ's  teaching.  (Deut.  xxxii. 
15  ;  Psalm  xviii.  2  ;  xiii.  9  ;  Isa.  xvii.  10.)  Here  the  contrast  is 
not  between  the  bad  man  and  the  good,  but  between  the  fool  and 
the  wise  man  (as  in  Matth.  xxv.  1)  ;  for  all  that  hear  are  supposed 
to  be  well-intentioned  ;  but  in  many,  spiritual  prudence  for  their 
being  spiritually  benefitted  was  wanting.  The  similitude  of  build- 
ing is  carried  out  in  1  Cor.  iii.  9,  ff.,  and  there  (ver.  11)  Christ  is 
called  the  foundation,  on  which  the  superstructure  of  the  spiritual 
life  must  rest.  In  Luke  vi.  48,  the  figure  of  laying  a  foundation  is 
further  carried  out  by  digging  deep.  (Bpo%^,  "  heavy  torrent  of 
rain,"  —  tjtca.  In  Luke,  Tr/L^^upa  =  n£jyyc&p{f  is  used,  which  means 
"  the  flowing  tide,"  in  contrast  with  aprwr^  or  dvdppoia,  the  ebb. 
Here,  where  it  is  used  in  its  more  general  sense,  it  denotes  any  over- 
flowing, desolating  flood,  from  streams  or  rain  storms.  [To  under- 
stand the  comparison,  imagine  the  rough,  steep  sides  of  the  valleys, 
of  that  Jura  formation  prevalent  in  Palestine.  A  house  built  beside  a 
torrent,  on  a  rock,  is  unharmed  by  the  swollen  and  sweeping  flood.  But 
if  resting,  though  placed  high  above  the  stream,  on  a  foundation  of 
earth,  the  flood  gradually  wears  away  its  base,  till  at  length  the  under- 
mined and  growing  slide  of  earth  reaches  the  house  itself,  and  plunges' 
it  into  the  flood.] — Ver.  26.  As  a  contrast  to  the  building  on  the  rocky 
foundation  of  the  eternal  Word  of  God,  which  defies  all  irmptations 
and  dangers,  there  follows  the  figure  of  a  baseless  building  on  the 


334  MATTHEW  VII.  27-29 ;  VIII.  1. 

sand,  to  denote  the  founding  of  the  inward  life  on  perishable  human 
dogmas,  opinions,  and  fancies.  This  building  on  the  sand  evidently 
refers  to  a  spiritual  work,  which  has  some  affinity  with  the  genuine, 
regenerating  work  of  the  Spirit,  but  is  destitute  of  the  proper  char- 
acter of  that  work.  [He  who  has  received  the  word  of  Christ  into 
his  ear  only,  builds  on  logical  sand.  He  is  not  born  again  ;  Christ 
the  rock  lives  not  in  him  ;  and  he  is  not  on  the  rock.  He,  on  the 
contrary,  who  does  Christ's  words,  i.  e.,  dies  to  the  world  (Matth.  v. 
3-12),  receivesthe  light  from  above  (v.  13,  ff.), understands  in  spirit, 
and  strives  to  fulfil  the  law  of  God  (v.  18-48),  hence  lives  for  God 
alone,  not  for  his  own  advantage  (vi.  1,  ff.),  and  strives  after  eternal 
life  (19-34),  recognizes  his  own  sinfulness  (vii.  1,  ff.),  prays  for  the 
Holy  Spirit  (7),  and  follows  Christ  in  the  narrow  way,  not  the  mul- 
titude, nor  the  false  prophets,  (vii.  13, 15) ;  he  has  built  his  spiritual 
edifice  on  Christ  the  Eock,  and  at  Christ's  second  coming  will 
stand.] 

Ver.  28,  29. — The  Evangelist  concludes  the  whole  with  a  refer- 
ence to  v.  1.  Matthew,  in  conclusion,  notices  only  the  impression 
which  Christ's  words  made  on  the  hearers.  'E/cTr/b/rreaftM  is  stronger 
than  davpd&iv  ;  it  expresses  being  inwardly  affected.  To  this  the 
words  i&vaiav  K%eiv**  point,  which  distinguished  the  discourses  of 
Jesus  from  those  of  the  Pharisees  ;  the  latter  often  uttered  truths, 
but  they  were  destitute  of  spiritual  power ;  their  discourses  were 
pictures  drawn  in  the  air,  without  essential  power  and  vital  energy. 
These  were  breathed  forth  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  by  them  he 
reached  the  depths  of  men's  hearts  ;  wheresoever,  therefore,  any- 
thing in  unison  with  the  truth  slumbered  within,  it  could  not  fail  to 
be  awakened  by  such  -a  stimulus. 


§  4.  HEALING  OF  A  LEPER. 

(Matth.  viii.  1-4;  Mark  i.  40-45  ;  Luke  v.  12-16.) 

After  this  portraiture  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher,  Matthew  proceeds  to 
describe  him  as  a  worker,  of  miracles,  since  the  next  two  chapters 
contain  nothing  but  narratives  of  the  Saviour's  wonderful  works.  In 
as  far  as  such  actions  are  generally  viewed  as  manifestations  of 
mighty  power,  they  are  called  in  the  Scriptures,  6vvdp.ei<;}  ni-naa, 
mighty  works.  Kegarded  in  their  connexion  with  the  divine  pur- 
poses in  relation  to  individuals  or  the  whole,  they  are  called 


*  Having  authority.  I  think  the  specific  reference  here  is  to  the  tone  of  authority 
which  Jesus  assumed,  and  whicb  marked  him  as  a  spiritual  legislator.  He  spoke  as  him- 
self the  sourrr-  of  knowledge,  and  the  authoritative  expounder  of  duty.  With  this,  of 
course,  st:?od  intimately  connected  the  vital  power  of  the  truths  which  he  uttered.  —  [K. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  1.  335 

signs.  As  events  exciting  astonishment  or  terror,  they  are  called 
repara,  Oavpdoia,  Matth.  xxi.  15  ;  nteVsa,  trn.sfa.  The  most  appropri- 
ate name  for  them,  when  used  of  our  Lord's  miracles,  is  £pya,  works 
(a  word  found  in  Matth.  xi.  2,  and  very  frequently  in  the  Gospel  of 
John).  In  that  name  the  miraculous  character  is,  as  it  were,  pointed 
out  as  the  natural  form  of  the  Saviour's  agency,  since  he,  as  pos- 
sessor of  divine  power,  must  necessarily  produce  supernatural  phe- 
nomena by  means  of  it.  He  himself  was  the  wonder  (repaf),  his 
wonderful  works  were  but  the  natural  acts  of  his  being.  Hence  it 
is  evident  that  we  cannot  adopt  that  idea  of  a  miracle,  which  re- 
gards it  merely  negatively  as  a  suspension  of  the  laws  of  nature. 
Starting  from  the  scriptural  view  of  the  abiding  presence  of  God  in 
the  world,  we  cannot  regard  the  laws  of  nature  as  mechanical  ar- 
rangements, which  would  have  to  be  altered  by  interpositions  from 
without :  they  have  the  character  of  being  based,  as  a  whole,  in 
God's  nature.  [Yet  it  should  be  remembered  that  nature  here  has 
been  disturbed  by  sin,  and  subjected  to  death,  and  hence  differs 
from  that  of  the  higher  regions  of  creation,  heaven.]  All  pheno- 
mena, therefore,  which  are  not  explicable  from  the  known  or  un- 
known laws  of  earthly  development,  are  not  for  that  reason  neces- 
sarily violations  of  law  and  suspensions  of  the  laws  of  nature  ; 
rather,  the,y  are  themselves  comprehended  under  a  higher  general 
law,  for  what  is  divine  is  truly  according  to  law.  That  which  is  not 
divine,  is  against  nature  ;  the  real  miracle  is  natural,  but  in  a  higher 
sense.  True,  the  cause  of  the  miracle  must  not  be  sought  within 
the  sphere  of  created  things  ;  it  exists  rather  in  the  immediate  act 
of  God.  All  God's  doings  are,  to  the  creature,  miracles,  although, 
viewed  in  relation  to  the  divine  essence,  they  are  purely  law  and 
order.  To  the  believer,  therefore,  what  is  apparently  natural — e.  g., 
the  preservation  of  the  world — the  growth  of  all  its  products — is 
miraculous,  because  he  is  accustomed  to  refer  every  thing  to  its  first 
cause.  No  miracle  is  therefore  performed  without  a  real  power. 
As  we  see  human  beings  working  miracles,  extensively  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  are  taught  the  possibility  of  higher  powers  being  im- 
parted to  men,  which  act  controllingly  upon  surrounding  objects, 
whether  nearer  or  more  distant.  Unless  we  admit  the  presence  of 
such  a  real  element  of  power — the  Spirit  in  his  gifts  (^apwTjwara,  1  Cor. 
xii.  10) — there  is  absolutely  no  connecting  link  between  the  miracle 
and  the  worker  of  it,  and  it  becomes  mere  juggling  or  witchcraft. 
We  might,  perhaps,  regard  animal  magnetism  as  bearing  a  certain 
analogy  to  this  higher  principle  of  power  ;  but  we  must  beware  of  con- 
founding that  obscure,  dangerous  principle  of  sensuous  life  with  the 
pure  element  of  light,  which  wrought  in  the  holy  men  of  Scripture 
narrative.  This  is  the  essence  of  God  in  them  ;  the  former  power  is 
of  the  creature,  and  defiled  by  sin.  But  that  in  later  times  spirit- 


336  MATTHEW  VIII.  1. 

ual  power  in  the  leaders  of  the  church  was  not  combined  with  mi- 
raculous gifts,  results  from  the  progress  of  the  race,  and  the  absence 
of  those  necessities,  which  called  forth  extraordinaiyxphenomena  to 
meet  the  exigences  of  a  critical  period. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  Scriptures  assert  not  merely  holy, 
but  also  evil,*  power  to  be  the  cause  of  miracles.  Two  series  of 
miracles  extend  throughout  Scripture  history.  As  the  works  of  the 
Egyptian  magicians  stand  opposed  to  the  miracles  of  Moses  (Exod. 
vii.  fir.),  so  in  the  New  Testament  the  miracles  of  antichrist  stand 
opposed  to  those  of  the  Saviour.  (Matth.  xxiv.  24 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  9  ; 
Kev.  xiii.  15.)  This  distinction  between  the  divine  and  the  satanic 
miracles  suggests  the  idea,  that  it  cannot  possibly  be  the  end  of 
miracles  to  establish  the  truth  of  any  affirmation.  In  the  sense  of 
Scripture,  too,  this  is  by  no  means  the  intention  of  miracles.  It  was 
only  the  people  that  so  viewed  them,  because  they  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  influenced  in  their  judgment  by  the  impression  of  power, 
or  the  excitement  of  the  senses  ;  for  which  reason  they  attached 
themselves  to  false  prophets  as  willingly,  and  even  more  so,  than  to 
the  true.  The  Saviour,  therefore,  severely  rebukes  this  eagerness  for 
sensible  miracles.  (John  iv.  48.)  But  when  our  Lord  in  other 
places  (e.  g.,  John  x.  25  ;  xiv.  10,  11)  calls  for  faith  in  his  works,  and 
connects  them  with  his  dignity  and  his  holy  office,  this  is  not  done 
in  order  to  establish  the  truth  of  his  declarations  ;  truth,  as  such, 
rather  proclaims  itself  irresistibly  to  impressible  minds  by  its  inward 
nature.  ("  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice,"  John 
xviii.  37.)  They  are  intended  rather  to  demonstrate  his  character 
as  a  divine  messenger ,  for  those  in  whom  the  impression  of  the  truth, 
conveyed  by  the  spirit  and  language  of  the  Saviour  had  wrought  its 
effect.  The  proclamation  of  truths  may  be  conceived,  without  the 
person  who  proclaims  them  bearing  the  character  of  a  messenger 
from  God.  In  such  a  case,  the  truths  may  predominate  greatly 
both  in  word  and  power  over  what  is  erroneous  ;  but  error  cannot 
be  conceived  as  utterly  excluded  in  the  case  of  any  human  teacher. 
God,  therefore,  invested  particular  individuals  as  his  instruments 
with  higher  powers,  in  order  to  distinguish  them  from  humanly  ex- 
cellent teachers,  and  to  accredit  them  before  mankind  as  infallible 
instruments  of  the  Holy  Spirit — as  teachers  of  absolute  truth. 
Hence  the  gift  of  miracles  is  one  of  the  necessary  characteristics  of 
true  prophets,  and  serves  to  witness  their  superior  character — to 
prove  that  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  leaders  and  guides  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  freed  from  all  error.  For  this  reason,  faith — that  is,  sus- 
ceptibility to  divine  operations — is  supposed  in  the  case  of  miracles  ; 

*  In  so  far  as  evil  in  general  is  merely  a  product  of  created  powers,  we  may  say  that 
the  satanic  miracles  are  merely  apparent  miracles ;  since  miracles  can  be  performed  by 
God'a  omnipotence  alone. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  1.  337 

and  it  is  only  the  truth,  combined  with  the  testimony  from  miracles, 
that  constitutes  the  character  of  a  divine  messenger  ;  by  virtue  of 
which,  things  may  also  be  established  as  true  and  certain,  which 
cannot  be  known  to  be  such  by  an  indwelling  susceptibility  to  truth. 
The  reverse  relation  obtains  with  the  representatives  of  the  kingdom 
of  darkness,  whom  the  Scriptures  call  false  prophets,  false  Christs, 
because,  notwithstanding  a  total  inward  diversity,  they  have  an  ex- 
ternal similarity  to  the  true  messengers  of  God.  Though  these  re- 
presentatives of  falsehood  mix  up  much  that  is  true  in  word  and 
deed,  and  would  fain  appear  as  the  messengers  of  the  kingdom  of 
light ;  yet  to  the  sincere  soul,  fitted  to  receive  the  truth,  the  entire 
spirit  of  their  doings  discovers  itself  as  unholy,  and  therefore  all  the 
miracles  conceivable  fail  to  induce  the  soul  to  surrender  itself  to 
them  :  the  very  association  of  miraculous  powers  with  an  unholy 
spirit  is  rather  a  proof  to  such  a  soul  of  their  close  connexion  with 
the  kingdom  of  darkness.  When,  therefore,  the  Saviour  condemns 
the  thirst  for  miracles,  he  rebukes  the  regard  to  externals  involved 
in  it,  which  is  a  sign  of  dead  ness  to  what  is  spiritual,  and  exposes  to 
the  danger  of  doing  homage  to  the  operations  of  evil,  when  they 
are  conjoined  with  miraculous  appearances.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  our  Lord  commends  the  desire  for  miracles,  as  a  confirmation 
of  the  inward  certainty,  that  he,  whose  truth  and  purity  of  action 
at  first  touched  the  soul,  is  more  than  a  human  teacher — that  he  is 
a  heavenly  accredited  messenger  of  God.  Miraculous  power  then, 
and  every  separate  manifestation  of  it,  is  in  itself  without  meaning; 
all  turns  on  its  connexion  with  the  general  disposition  of  the  person 
hi  whom  it  is  seen.  The  association  of  miracles  with  what  is  holy, 
is  the  sublime  testimony  of  God  to  his  servants  ;  the  association  of 
miracles  with  what  is  unholy,  is  a  warning,  meant  to  awaken  horror 
at  the  emissaries  of  the  pit ;  the  knowledge  of  what  is  holy  and 
what, is  unholy  in  itself,  and  in  its  true  nature,  is  presupposed,  in 
order  to  be  capable  of  discriminating  the  nature  of  miracles  ;  and 
this  knowledge  depends  on  sincerity  and  purity  of  heart.  The  im- 
pure man  persuades  himself  that  God's  true  miracles  might  have 
been  wrought  by  the  evil  spirit,  and  the  false  ones  he  regards  as 
true  ;  the  pure  man  views  both  in  their  true  form,  because  he  car- 
ries in  himself  the  rule  and  criterion  of  truth. 

If  now  we  glance  at  the  history  of  miracles,  we  do  not  find  any 
miracles  wrought  by  the  agency  of  men  before  the  time  of  Moses  ; 
for  God's  miracles,  his  revelations  in  the  Son,  and  in  angels,  and  so 
forth,  are  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  those  in  which  mira- 
culous gifts  are  attached  to  a  human  being.  It  seems  as  if  a  ripe- 
ness of  human  nature  were  requisite,  to  fit  it  to  serve  as  the  vehicle 
of  mighty  spiritual  energies.  For  this  reason,  Jesus  wrought  no 
miracles  as  a  child ;  and  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testa- 

VOL.  I.— 22 


338  MATTHEW  VIII.  1. 

ment  betray  their  senseless  character  in  this,  among  other  things, 
that  they  describe  the  child  Jesus  as  working  miracles.  Again, 
after  the  time  of  Moses,  we  notice  a  difference  between  the  miracles 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  The  miracles  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament bear  not  only  a  more  colossal,  but  a  more  external,  character. 
They  are  more  calculated  to  move  the  inferior  powers  of  the  soul, 
particularly  the  imagination.  The  miracles  of  the  New  Testament 
are  more  spiritual.  They  display  a  more  definite  reference  to  the 
moral  world.  In  particular,  we  find  the  Saviour,  in  his  miraculous 
agency,  following  the  principles  maintained  in  the  temptation.  He 
never  wrought  miracles  to  amaze — never  for  himself.  The  Father 
only  wrought  miracles  in  him  for  his  disciples,  either  in  a  narrower 
sphere,  as  at  the  transfiguration,  or  in  a  wider  one,  as  at  the  resur- 
rection, for  the  confirmation  of  their  faith.  In  humble  quiet,  Jesus 
employed  the  fulness  of  divine  power  and  life  dwelling  in  him,  to 
console  the  unhappy,  and  deliver  them  from  the  source  of  their  sor- 
rows ;  in  this  sense  also  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  and  to  lay 
the  foundations  of  the  kindgdom  of  God  ;  since  our  Lord  always 
knew  how  to  apply  outward  help  as  a  spiritual  remedy.  For  the 
miraculous  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  should  be  regarded  as  acts  at 
once  physical  and  moral,  in  which  the  fulness  of  divine  life  passed 
over  to  susceptible  individuals,  in  order,  along  with  the  organic  har- 
mony of  the  vital  processes,  to  evince  the  possibility  of  a  harmonious 
spiritual  life.  The  cures  effected  by  the  Redeemer  were  also  dis- 
tinguished from  those  of  his  disciples  in  this,  that  he  performed 
them  in  his  own  name,  by  the  perfection  of  his  indwelling  power. 
The  disciples,  on  the  other  hand,  wrought  them  only  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  by  his  power,  as  his  instruments.  Faith  was,  therefore, 
to  them  as  much  the  medium  of  appropriating  miraculous  powers, 
as  to  others  of  being  healed  ;  and,  in  this  appropriation  through 
faith,  we  find  them  in  a  state  of  gradual  progression.  (Matth.  x.  1, 
8  ;  xvii.  19,  ff.)  For  a  time  the  gift  of  miracles  continued  after  the 
removal  of  the  apostles,  till,  after  the  complete  establishment  of  the 
church,  it  gradually  disappeared.  But,  together  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  there  still  remained  the  inward  miracles  of  regeneration, 
sanctification,  hearing  of  prayer,  which  are  greater  than  the  out- 
ward ones.  These  outward  miraculous  gifts  will  not  again  appear 
till  the  last  times,  when  the  situation  of  the  church  shall  render 
necessary  the  sending  of  new  prophets.  The  view  held  by  the 
Romish  church  of  the  necessity  of  an  unbroken  continuance 
miraculous  gifts,  results  from  a  confounding  of  external  and  intern 
miracles.  It  is  only  the  latter  of  which  a  church  cannot  be  CO] 
ceived  to  be  destitute  ;  for  the  God  whose  every  act  is  a  miracle, 
dwells  in  it. 

Matth.  viii.  1.—  Of  the  first  of  the  cures  narrated  by  Matthew, 


MATTHEW  VIII.  1,  2.  339 

the  chronological  connexion  is  undetermined.  (See  Matth.  viii.  1/ 
5,  compared  with  Luke  v.  11,  16,  17.)  Still  as,  according  to  Luke 
(vii.  1),  Christ  heals  the  centurion's  servant  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  as  Matthew  likewise  relates  (viii.  5,  if.),  the 
position  given  to  this  event  by  Matthew  may  he  chronologically  cor- 
rect, and  the  healing  of  the  leper  may  have  happened  immediately 
after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  on  the  road  to  Capernaum.  (Luke 
[v.  12]  says,  EV  fua  rtiv  -rroAewv.)  The  narrative  begins  with  the  ob- 
servation, that,  immediately  on  the  Saviour's  descending  from  the 
mountain,  crowds  gathered  around  him.  Among  them  a  leper  ap- 
proached. (Karaftaiveiv  dnb  TOV  opovg  refers  to  ver.  1.  The  construc- 
tion is  remarkable  for  the  repetition  of  avrw — a  construction  which 
occurs  in  this  same  chapter,  verses  5,  23,  28,  and  elsewhere  in  Mat- 
thew. The  first  avrw  looks  like  a  dative  absolute  with  Karaftavri. 
From  this  feeling,  the  various  reading  na-aftavroq  avrov  may  be  ac- 
counted for  as  a  correction  for  the  less  usual  dative.) 

Yer.  2. — The  leprosy  shewed  itself  in  several  forms — some  more 
dangerous,  others  milder.  The  regulations  of  Moses  respecting  the 
n^  leave  no  doubt  on  that  point.  (Lev.  xiii.  ;  xiv,)  The  persons 
afflicted  with  the  dangerous  leprosy  (see  on  the  subject  Winer's 
"  Kealworterbuch,"  s.  v.)  were  considered  unclean  according  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  could  not  be  received  into  the  congregation  again 
till  their  cure  was  ascertained.  This  leper,  of  whom  Matthew  tells 
us,  might  already  have  heard  of  Christ's  cures,  or  have  seen  some 
of  them.  At  any  rate,  he  displays  his  faith  in  Christ  by  prostrating 
himself,  and  by  the  express  petition  for  healing,  which  he  supposes 
Jesus  able  to  accomplish  for  him  also.  (The  word  irpooKvveiv  = 
yovvTrer&v  in  Mark  =  -rreouv  KTH  npoouTrov  in  Luke,  corresponds  to  the 
Hebrew  svinnipn.  It  is  the  general  form  of  expressing  respect  in  the 
East,  and  has  not  in  itself  any  religious  reference.)  But,  with  re- 
spect to  the  nature  of  the  faith,*  which  we  must  suppose  to  exist  in 
the  persons  cured  in  this  as  in  all  similar  cases  (see  note  on  Matth. 
xiii.  58),  we  must  first  of  all  lay  it  down  that  -niart^,  faith,  viewed 
in  its  religious  bearing,  in  every  case  retains  one  and  the  same  fun- 
damental signification.  This  is  modified  only  by  the  different  ob- 
jects of  faith,  which  again  are  determined  by  the  different  degrees 
of  its  development.  Now  we  must  not  make  the  essence  of  faith  to 
consist  in  knowledge  either  of  the  divine  in  general  in  the  Old  Test- 
ament, or  of  the  divine  in  Christ  in  particular  in  the  New.  For 
such  knowledge,  whether  confused  or  clear  in  its  conception,  may 
be  united  with  a  state  of  the  soul,  which  is  the  opposite  of  believing. 
Faith  is  rather  rooted  in  a  spiritual  susceptibility  to  the  divine, 
which  has  its  seat  in  the  heart,  icapdia  (see  Bom.  x.  9,  10),  while 
knowledge  (yvwo/f)  depends  upon  the  susceptibility  to  the  divine 

*  See  remarks  on  Rom.  iii.  21. 


840  MATTHEW  VIII.  2,  3. 

in  the  understanding  (vav<;).  Faith  is  also  capable  of  inward  grada- 
tion, according  to  the  degree  in  which  the  divine  is  revealed.  Par- 
ticularly in  the  cures,  where  faith  is  made  the  negative  requisite, 
which  determines  the  ability  to  receive  the  Spirit's  powers  emanat- 
ing from  Christ,  the  faith  demanded  or  exercised  is  not  the  holding 
certain  doctrinal  positions,  but  a  susceptibility,  both  spiritual  and 
bodily,  to  the  Saviour's  agency.  This  was,  doubtless,  uniformly 
accompanied  by  the  belief  that  Christ  was  the  Messiah,  and  that, 
as  Messiah,  he  could  work  miracles.  But  we  might  also  conceive 
these  ideas  as  existing  apart  from  that  fundamental  disposition, 
which  we  have  designated  as  susceptibility  of  the  heart,  and  of  the 
whole  nature  to  the  divine  :  and  thus  separated  they  would  not 
satisfy  any  condition  of  miraculous  healing.*  This  is  the  view  sug- 
gested by  the  description  of  all  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus.  In  no 
case  does  he  ask  after  definite  doctrines  as  objects  of  faith.  In  no 
case  does  he  mention  them  as  a  necessary  quality  of  faith.  The 
Saviour  leaves  the  mere  profession  of  faith  to  speak  for  its  quality, 
because  demeanour  and  language  at  once  proclaimed  the  general 
disposition  of  the  soul,  as  being  either  open  or  closed  to  divine  in- 
fluences. Hence  it  is  evident  also,  that  the  outward  bodily  healing 
was  only  a  symbol  of  the  inward  spiritual  healing  which  was  pro- 
perly intended.  (See  note  on  John  vii.  23.)  For  those  same  vital 
powers,  which  removed  the  bodily  disorganization,  exercised  an  in- 
fluence, in  conformity  with  their  nature,  on  the  spiritual  character 
of  the  person  cured.  They  brought  him  into  a  real  connexion  with 
the  world  of  good  in  general,  and  took  possession  of  him  on  the 
position  to  which  he  had  just  attained,  in  order  to  raise  him  still 
higher. 

Ver.  3. — At  the  sick  man's  request,  our  Lord  lays  his  hand  upon 
him,  and  heals  him.  In  most  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  there  was  a 
similar  immediate  touching  ;  and  there  can  be  no  hesitation  in  ac- 
knowledging a  conducting  medium  of  healing  power  (only  not  a 
necessary  one)  in  the  putting  forth  of  the  hand,  just  as  in  blessing 
with  the  solemn  laying  on  of  hands  (emOeaig  T&V  xeip&v).  The  analogy 
of  animal  magnetism  suggests  itself,  and  it  is  certainly  not  acci- 
dental ;  only,  as  was  hinted  above,  it  must  never  be  forgotten,  that 
the  power  of  Jesus  Christ  was  divine,  and  magnetism,  therefore, 
can  be  referred  to,  only  to  indicate  a  power  presenting  similar  phe- 
nomena in  an  inferior  region  of  existence.  (Kadapi^eiv  =  nnta  may 
signify  "  to  pronounce  clean,"  inasmuch  as  the  priest  who  pro- 
nounced the  diseased  man  clean,  restored  him  to  society  from  which 
he  had  been  cut  off.  [See  Lev.  xiii.  13,  17,  in  the  LXX.  transla- 

*  The  profound  mystic  Gerhard  Tersteegen  calls  faith,  very  appropriately,  "  the  in- 
wardly hungering  desire  of  the  spirit,  which  lays  hold  of  not  only  the  form,  but  also  the 
essence  of  what  is  divine."  ( Weg  der  Wahrheit,  S.  366.) 


MATTHEW  VIII.  3,  4.  341 

tion.]  But  that  an  actual  and  instantaneous  removal  of  the  disease 
is  intended  in  this  case,  is  evident  from  the  words  "  immediately 
his  leprosy  departed  from  him"  (evdeug  dnriWev  77  Aerrpa)  [Mark  i. 
42],  which  are  explanatory  of  EKaOapiafh],  was  cleansed.  In  Mat- 
thew, too,  the  connecting  of  KKadapiaOr)  with  27  Aerrpo  avrov)  requires 
in  the  verb  the  idea  of  removing.) 

Ver.  4. — All  the  narratives  agree  in  recording,  that  the  cure  was 
followed  by  the  command  of  our  Lord  to  tell  no  one  of  the  event. 
Similar  prohibitions  are  often  found  in  the  Evangelical  history.  (See 
Matth.  ix.  30  ;  xii.  16  ;  xvi.  20  ;  xvii.  9  ;  Mark  iii.  12  ;  v.  43  ;  vii. 
36  ;  viii.  26,  30  ;  ix.  9  ;  Luke  viii.  56  ;  ix.  21.)  The  Saviour's 
reasons  for  them  were  of  various  kinds.  Sometimes  he,  doubtless, 
meant,  in  that  way,  to  guard  against  popular  movements  to  make 
him  the  Messiah-king  ;  at  others,  to  withdraw  the  people's  atten- 
tion from  the  transactions,  and  prevent  their  rendering  him  external 
homage  ;  or,  as  Luther  observes,  to  give  an  example  of  humility. 
But  he  may  have  often  forbidden  the  announcement  for  the  sake  of 
those  who  were  cured.  If  these  persons  were  in  danger  of  distrac- 
tion by  outward  occupation,  it  might  be  the  intention  of  Jesus  to 
lead  them  thus  to  try  themselves,  and  to  turn  their  attantion  within. 
That  this  was  sometimes  his  motive,  is  especially  probable  from  the 
circumstance  that  we  meet  with  instances  of  an  opposite  character, 
where  our  Lord  encourages  them  to  declare  what  God  had  done  by 
him.  (See  Mark  v.  19.)  This  appears  to  have  been  his  practice 
towards  those  persons  who,  naturally  reserved,  and  lost  in  undue 
self-contemplation,  needed  prompting  to  outward  activity  for  the 
prosperity  of  their  inward  life.  The  circumstance  last  noticed 
affords  a  glance  into  the  profound  wisdom  of  our  Lord  as  a  teacher, 
who  understood  how  to  treat  every  one  according  to  his  wants.  In 
the  present  case,  it  would  seem  from  the  account  in  Matthew,  most 
suitable  to  look  for  the  reason  of  the  prohibition  in  the  person  cured, 
since  the  cure  was  wrought  in  the  presence  of  many,  and  yet  the 
command  to  tell  nothing  of  it  was  directed  to  the  leper  alone.  It 
is  true,  Mark  had  said  nothing  of  the  multitudes  ;  and  from  his 
representation,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  command  was  intended 
to  prevent  popular  tumults.  His  account  is  (i.  45),  that  the  leper, 
notwithstanding  the  prohibition,  published  the  miracle  diligently, 
(nokkd  often  used  in  Mark — e.  g.,  iii.  12  ;  v.  23  ;  xv.  3 — in  the 
sense  of  "  greatly,"  "  zealously,")  and  that,  by  that  means,  such  a 
commotion  arose,  "  that  Jesus  could  no  more  openly  enter  into  the 
city" — viz.,  without  giving  encouragement  to  the  carnal  hopes  of 
the  Messiah  among  the  multitude.  Perhaps  Mark  1ms  also  sub- 
joined the  words  :  nal  t-jUjSptjUT/CTajuevo?  avr&  evOewg  e^fta^ev  avrov,  and 
he  straitly  charged  him,  etc.,  to  make  the  command  more  stringent. 
('Eju/3ptjuao/«u  has  here  the  meaning  of  "  to  command  with  solemnity 


342  MATTHEW  VIII.  4,  5. 

and   emphasis/'  as  in   Matth.   ix.   30.     'Eic(3dkkeiv  =  Ki»«in.     See 
Matth.  ix.  25.) 

Not  less  important  than  this  prohibition  is  the  command  to  go 
to  the  priests  and  present  the  appointed  offering.  (See  Lev.  xiv.  2, 
ff.)  This  command  not  only  displays  a  wise  care  to  interfere,  in  no 
respect,  with  the  theocratic  institutions,  but  also  a  tender  cautious- 
ness not  to  remove  the  subject  of  the  cure  from  his  moral  position, 
but  to  confirm  him  in  a  faithful  discharge  of  his  obligations.  We 
by  no  means  find  Jesus  seeking  to  awaken  in  each  subject  of  his 
healing  power  that  deeper  feeling  which,  through  regeneration, 
should  bring  him  into  the  life  characteristic  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  often  leaves  them,  as  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist,  quietly  to 
maintain  their  legal  position  (in  which  they  had  been  called  to  per- 
fection), and  seeks  only  to  guide  them  to  the  true  righteousness 
which  even  under  the  old  dispensation  involved  repentance.  All 
the  Evangelists  concur  in  specially  subjoining  the  words  :  "  for  a 
testimony  to  them."  They  intimate  that  the  command  had  refer- 
ence to  the  priests  also — that  is,  by  pronouncing  the  leper  clean 
they  were  to  testify  to  the  reality  of  the  cure,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
condemn  their  unbelief.  (The  antecedent  lepel,  must  be  taken  col- 
lectively on  account  of  the  avroig,  which  follows.  The  word 
t>7ro%wp£0),  used  in  Luke  v.  16,  does  not  occur  any  where  else,  except 
in  Luke  ix.  10,  with  the  meaning,  clam  me  subduco.) 


§  5.  HEALING  OF  THE  SERVANT  OF  A  CENTURION. 

(Matth.  viiL  5-13  ;  Luke  vii.  1-10.) 

This  narrative  is  one  of  the  gems  among  the  many  little  epi- 
sodes, complete  in  themselves,  with  which  the  Evangelical  history 
is  adorned.  It  exhibits  to  us  a  pious  heart  in  the  most  amiable 
childlike  form,  freely  manifesting  its  life  of  faith  without  any  doc- 
trinal tinge  whatsoever.  The  centurion,  probably  in  the  Koman 
garrison  at  Capernaum,  having  grown  up  in  heathenism,  was,  from 
residing  among  the  Jews,  favourably  disposed  towards  the  religion 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  miracles  of  the  patriarchal  times,  of 
which  he  heard,  he  might  often  have  longed  after,  without  knowing 
that  he  was  to  see  infinitely  more  than  these.  But  his  humility  was 
as  profound  and  sincere,  as  his  faith  was  deep  ;  he  esteemed  him- 
self not  worthy  that  the  ruler  over  spiritual  powers  should  enter  his 
house.  In  this  character  he  recognized  Jesus  ;  but  what  precise 
view  he  entertained  of  him,  it  would  be  hard  to  determine,  since  it 
was,  probably,  as  usually  happens  in  childlike  dispositions,  unde- 
veloped, though  in  the  main,  correct.  The  Saviour  makes  no  effort 


MATTHEW  VIII.  4-6.  343 

to  extend  his  views  :  his  desire  is  satisfied ;  his  faith  in  the  gracious 
manifestation  of  divinity  which  had  come  near  him,  strength- 
ened ;  and  aid  furnished  toward  perfection  in  his  present  views. — 
With  respect  to  the  two  accounts  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  latter 
undoubtedly  possesses  the  superiority  in  point  of  vividness  and  ex- 
actness in  external  circumstances.  Matthew  gives  greater  promi- 
nence to  that  part  (ver.  11,  12)  in  the  address  of  Jesus,  which  refers 
to  the  Jews,  whom  the  Evangelist  everywhere  chiefly  regards.  The 
circumstance  that  Luke  makes  the  centurion  send  his  friends  to 
Jesus  ;  while,  according  to  Matthew,  he  goes  himself  .to  Jesus,  can- 
not be  regarded  as  a  contradiction  ;  for  the  latter  representation  is 
nothing  but  a  shorter  mode  of  expression,  since,  in  the  words  of  his 
friends,  his  own  faith  was  made  evident  to  our  Lord.  The  occur- 
rence mentioned  in  John  iv.  46-53,  Semler  and  others  were  inclined 
to  regard  as  identical  with  this  ;  but  L'dclce,  and  Tholuck  have 
convincingly  proved  the  opposite.  As  the  narrative  of  a  cure,  this 
transaction  is  so  far  remarkable,  that,  in  this  case,  Christ,  without 
personal  contact,  merely  by  the  magic  power  of  his  will  (if  I  may 
use  the  expression),  exercises  an  active  power  at  a  distance — a  fact 
which  again  has  its  analogies  in  magnetism.*  On  the  circumstance 
of  the  centurion  believing,  while  his  servant  is  being  healed,  see 
note  on  Luke  xvii.  14,  ff. 

Ver.  5,  6. — The  locality  of  the  occurrence  is  fully  pointed  out 
by  both  narrators.  It  took  place  as  Christ  was  entering  Capernaum. 
Matthew  makes  the  centurion  present  the  request  for  his  sick  ser- 
vant in  his  own  person.  According  to  Luke,  he  presented  it 
through  the  intervention  of  others — viz.,  the  presidents  of  the  syn- 
agogue, to  the  erection  of  which  he  had  contributed.  This  fact 
shews  that  the  Koman  warrior  had  been  subdued  by  the  power 
of  the  truth  as  exhibited  in  the  Old  Testament  form,  and  had 
united  himself  to  the  synagogue  as  one  who  feared  Grod  (oepofjievos 
rbv  0ew),  probably  only  as  a  proselyte  of  the  gate.  As  a  heathen, 
the  centurion  might  not  dare  to  approach  the  Messiah  at  all,  and 
would,  therefore,  seek  his  interposition  through  those  representatives 
of  the  Old  Covenant  with  whom  he  was  intimate.  (Half  =  dovkog, 
Luke  vii.  2,  just  as  "i?3  =15?.  He  was  afflicted  with  paralysis 
[rrapaAim«;6f],  which  is  generally  understood  to  imply  a  partial  affec- 
tion only  ;  but  as  it  had  brought  the  sick  man  near  to  death  [f/^AAe 
reAevrav,  Luke  vii.  2],  the  term  is  probably  used  for  apoplexy.  The 
Jewish  elders  made  use  of  the  centurion's  attachment  towards  the 
Jews  as  a  motive  to  induce  Christ,  in  whom  they  supposed  the 

*  There  seems  not  the  slightest  necessity  for  these  repeated,  and  to  us  offensive  allu- 
sions to  magnetism  in  connexion  with  the  miracles  of  our  Lord.  Assuredly,  it  is  not 
strange  that  l^o  who  controls  all  agencies,  and  works  directly  and  indirectly  throughout 
nature,  should  have  wrought  with  a  like  variety  of  ways  upon  earth.  In  all  cases  the 
miracle  was  the  immediate  act  of  omnipotence. — [K. 


344  MATTHEW  VIII.  6-10. 

power  of  healing  to  exist,  to  exercise  it  in  this  case.  Some  Codd. 
read  Trapefy  for  Tropefet,  which,  form  besides  in  this  passage,  is  found 
also  in  Luke  xxii.  42  ;  Matth.  xxvii.  4  ;  John  xi.  40.) 

Ver.  7,  8. — After  Christ  had  expressed  his  willingness,  and  as 
he  was  approaching  the  centurion's  house  (ov  naicpav  d-rc^ovrof  duo 
TT/S-  oliciag,  Luke  vii.  6),  the  latter  according  to  Luke's  more  circum- 
stantial account,  sent  some  friends  to  meet  him  to  prevent  him  from 
giving  himself  personal  trouble.  (SKV/UW  occurs  also  in  Luke  viii. 
49  ;  Mark  v.  35,  always  with  the  meaning,  "  to  trouble,"  "  to  put 
to  inconvenience/')  The  idea  that  the  personal  presence  of  the 
Saviour  was  not  necessary  for  the  healing  of  his  servant,  which  he 
so  much  desired,  but  that  the  Saviour,  as  the  Lord  of  spiritual 
powers,  could  help  with  a  word  (Aoyw),  is  the  expression  of  a  faith 
both  bold  and  free  from  the  dominion  of  sense.  But  in  the  wish  that 
Jesus  should  not  come  under  his  roof,  various  emotions  are  involved. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  certainly  an  expression  of  the  deepest  hu- 
mility, which  does  not  esteem  itself  worthy  of  a  visit  from  a  hea- 
venly guest  (ovde  i^iavrbv  fjtjiGioa  trpog  GE  eWelv,  Luke  vii.  7  j  OVK  elfu 
licavog,  compare  Matth.  iii.  11.)  Further,  this  humility  may  have 
been  combined  with  fear  of  the  presence  of  what  is  holy,  as  involv- 
ing danger  to  what  is  unholy.  (See  note  on  Luke  v.  8.) 

Ver.  9. — The  reasons  assigned  by  the  centurion  for  thinking  that 
the  Saviour  need  not  trouble  himself  personally  to  come  to  the 
sick  man,  illustrate  most  clearly  his  views  of  Jesus.  He  com- 
pared Christ's  relation  to  the  world  of  spirits  with  his  own 
military  position.  He  derived  thence,  notwithstanding  his  subordi- 
nate rank  (elfu  vnb  et-ovoiav  raaoonevog^  absolute  command  over  his 
inferiors.  In  like  manner  he  imagined  Christ  commanding  in  the 
world  of  spiritual  powers.  Whether  he  conceived  of  Christ  specially 
as  Lord  of  the  angelic  host,  cannot  be  determined.  In  any  case  his 
conceptions  were  probably  dim.  Heathenish  notions  about  sons  of 
God  (as  in  the  case  of  the  centurion  at  the  cross,  Matth.  xxvii.  54) 
may  have  been  blended  in  his  mind  with  views  which  he  had  heard 
expressed  concerning  the  Messiah.  Notwithstanding  this  indefinite- 
ness  in  his  conceptions,  he  possessed  in  his  heart  a  deep  religious 
life,  which  excited  the  astonishment  of  the  Son  of  God  himself. 

Ver.  10. — The  Saviour's  wondering  (Oavpd&iv)  at  the  humble 
faith  of  the  centurion  (see  note  on  Matth.  xv.  21,  ff.,  respecting  the 
Canaanitish  woman)  points  to  a  peculiar  relation  between  divine  and 
human  judgments,  intimated  even  in  the  Old  Testament  (Gen. 
xxxii.  24,  sq.)  While  what  is  lofty  in  man  is  abomination  to  the 
Lord,  the  lowly  find  favour  before  him,  so  that  he,  the  lofty  One, 
dwells  in  the  depths  with  the  lowly,  Psalm  xxxiv.  18.  The  Saviour 
here  employs  the  manifestation  by  a  heathen  of  that  state  of  soul, 
which  is  the  essential  condition  of  God's  dwelling  in  humanity,  to 


MATTHEW  VIII.  10-12.  345 

arouse  in  his  Jewish  companions  a  sense  of  their  proper  destination. 
Israel  was  called  not  only  from  its  own  bosom  to  give  birth  to  the 
Saviour,  but  also  to  preserve  a  perfect  susceptibility  to  his  in- 
fluences ;  and  by  means  of  these  first  to  build  up  the  kingdom  of 
God  among  themselves.  Jesus  here  censures  the  want  of  that 
spiritual  susceptibility,  and  hints  at  the  mystery  of  the  transfer  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,  intimations  of  which  even  the  Old  Tes- 
tament contains  (Isa.  xix.  21,  22  ;  Ivi.  6,  7  ;  Psalm  Ixxxvii.  4,  ff.), 
without,  however,  connecting  the  diffusion  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  God  to  the  heathen  with  the  rejection  of  Israel. 

Ver.  11,  12. — The  pious  centurion  appears  in  the  sequel  as  the 
representative  of  those  heathens  in  general,  who,  by  their  deep 
longing  for  what  is  divine,  surpass  the  Jews,  who  clung  with  the 
stiffness  of  death  to  mere  form.  Such  spiritual  members  of  Israel 
(Rom.  ii.  14,  15  ;  xi.  17  ff.)  are  conceived  as  scattered  among  all 
people  and  regions,  but  in  Christ  gathered  together  and  united  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.  John  x.  16.  (East  and  west,  ('Avarokai, 
(Sixr/jot),  to  which  in  the  parallel  passage  [Luke  xiii.  29]  north  and 
south  (flopp&g,  vorog)  are  added,  denote  all  the  dimensions  of  the 
earth's  extent,  according  to  the  sensible  impression — implying  the 
whole  of  it.  See  Isa.  xliii.  6.)  The  Jews,  as  children  of  the  king- 
dom, are  contrasted  with  the  heathen,  so  that  the  latter  are  viewed 
only  in  a  more  general  relation  to  the  divine  kingdom.  (In  like  man- 
ner, Rom.  ix.  25  :  /ca/lecrw  rbv  o  v  /L  a  6  v  jiov,  Aadv  \iov  •  Kal  rr^v  OVK 
jJyaTTT/^evT/v,  fjya-mifiEvrjv,  after  Hos.  ii.  23.)  The  abuse  of  their  privi- 
leges on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  caused  this  relation  to  be  exactly  re- 
versed. The  privileges  in  which  the  Jews  trusted,  became  the 
possession  of  the  believing  heathen  ;  the  punishment  they  desired 
for  the  heathen  fell  on  their  own  heads.  These  privileges  are 
comprised  in  the  phrase  :  dvanXiveoOai  ev  ry  flamteia,  recline  at  table; 
only  we  are  not  at  all  warranted  in  regarding  the  expression  as  an 
empty  image  of  happiness.  Jesus  was  addressing  Jews,  who  had 
adopted  into  their  Messianic  conceptions  the  idea  of  a  social  meal, 
as  a  general  expression  of  being  and  living  together  with  the  risen 
saints  of  old,  as  the  representatives  of  whom,  "  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob"  (and  in  Luke  xiii.  28,  "  all  the  prophets"),  are  men- 
tioned. See  Sertholdt,  Christol.  jud.,  p.  196,  seq.)  Passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  (such  as  Isa.  xxv.  6)  might  have  contributed  to 
the  formation  of  this  notion.  Accordingly,  the  readiest  supposition 
would  be  to  regard  the  expressions  in  this  passage  as  accommodated 
to  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  opening  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
with  a  banquet,  if  we  could  persuade  ourselves  to  incorporate  into 
our  idea  of  the  Saviour,  such  a  trait  as  an  accommodation  to  the 
popular  superstition  which  he  came  to  destroy.*  Moreover,  as  this 

*  There  seems  no  more  difficulty  in  supposing  our  Saviour  to  avail  himself  by  way  of 


346  MATTHEW  VIII.  11, 12. 

particular  feature  appears  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  (see  Luke 
xiv.  14,  15  ;  Rev.  xix.  9),  another  interpretation  offers  itself,  less  at 
variance  with  the  general  teachings  of  Scripture  respecting  the  con- 
summation of  all  things,  and  with  our  idea  of  the  Saviour.  For 
through  the  whole  New  Testament  extends  the  doctrine  of  the 
restoration  of  our  sin-defiled  world — (a  doctrine  acknowledged  in 
other  passages,  as  Rom.  viii.  19,  ff.,  by  many  interpreters,  who  re- 
ject it  in  the  present) — and  stands  intimately  connected  with  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  presented  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  as  a  real  restora- 
tion, not  indeed  of  the  corruptible  body  of  death,  but  of  that 
incorruptible  one,  which  has  grown  up  from  its  elements.  To  this 
restoration  of  the  paradisaical  condition  of  the  earth,  in  which  the 
acme  of  Christ's  power  to  overcome  the  power  of  sin  will  be  mani- 
fested, the  present  passage  refers,  so  that  the  kingdom  is  here  the 
state  of  righteousness,  outwardly  and  visibly  attaining  to  power. 
The  commencement  of  that  state,  combined  with  the  resurrection 
of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  is  conceived  as  being  celebrated  by 
the  Saviour  visibly  presenting  himself  in  company  with  his  people 
at  a  new  covenant-banquet.  As  the  Saviour,  when  about  to  depart, 
was  united  with  his  disciples  for  the  last  time  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 
so  in  the  kingdom  of  God  he  will  (according  to  Matth.  xxvi.  29) 
again  gather  them,  as  the  great  family  of  God,  at  the  supper  of  the 
Lamb.  (Rev.  xix.  9.)  Hence  the  Jews'  fundamental  idea  of  a 
feast  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  undoubtedly  correct,  and  likewise 
expressed  in  Christ's  words  in  the  New  Testament,  only  that  their 
carnal  sense  had,  on  the  one  hand,  given  it  a  gross  material  form, 
and  on  the  other,  viewed  it  isolated  and  without  its  spiritual  condi- 
tions.* An  external  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  realized 
outwardly  and  visibly,  necessarily  presupposes  its  inward  spiritual 
establishment. 

Not  less  erroneous  than  this  Jewish  materialism  is  Gnostic  ideal- 
ism, which,  in  the  place  of  a  real  resurrection  of  the  body,  which 
necessarily  implies  a  glorified  world,  teaches  a  so-called  pure  life  of 
the  spirit,  known,  indeed,  to  Scripture,  but  only  to  be  condemned 
as  a  worthless  conception.  (2  Tim.  ii.  18.)  The  Bible  teaches  that 
the  soul  necessarily  needs  an  organ  ;  and  that,  consequently,  the 

mere  allusion,  of  such  a  popular  notion  in  regard  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  teaching  an  important  truth,  than  in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, 
to  employ  prevalent  conceptions  respecting  the  localities  of  the  invisible  world.  In 
neither  case  does  he  endorse  the  view,  for  in  both  it  is  merely  incidental. — [K. 

*  On  account  of  such  aberrations,  Chiliasm  has  been  condemned  by  the  Church  ever 
since  the  third  century.  But  that  the  fundamental  ideas  of  that  system,  apart  from  their 
materialized  form,  have  their  root  in  the  Scriptures,  has  been  acknowledged  by  many  ex- 
positors in  recent  times,  though  with  the  intention  of  deriving  arguments  against  the  Bible. 
These  fundamental  ideas  are  ho  other  than — victory  of  good  over  evil,  even  in  outward 
things,  and  restoration  of  the  original  harmony  in  the  visible  creation  also. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  12,  13 ;  LUKE  VII.  11.  34T 

state  after  the  dissolution  of  this  terrestrial  body  till  the  resurrection  is 
an  imperfect,  intermediate  state.  With  the  resurrection,  the 
kingdom  commences  in  its  complete  form,  and  to  this  the  passage 
before  us  points. 

While,  then,  the  heathen  are  represented  as  being  received  into 
the  kingdom,  the  Jews  appear  as  excluded  from  it.  (*E£w  points  to 
an  &TW,  since  the  kingdom  is  conceived  as  a  limited  region  of  ex- 
istence into  which  nothing  extraneous  can  make  its  way.  On 
this  point,  see  Matth.  xxv.  10.  Light  is  viewed  as  the  element  of 
the  kingdom,  to  which  darkness  forms  the  contrast.  In  the  epithet 
S&repov,  ivithout,  the  idea  of  distance  from  the  element  of  life  and 
joy  is  expressed.  (Wisdom  of  Solomon  xvii.  21  ;  xviii.  1.)  The 
weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth  in  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  is 
parallel  with  the  happy  enjoyment  of  the  feast  in  the  kingdom  •  of 
G-od,  and  its  expression  of  the  most  exquisite  sense  of  pain,  arising 
from  a  consciousness  of  having  missed  the  end  of  life,  is  the  eternal 
truth.  Moreover,  as  the  kingdom  is  here  in  itself  not  strictly  identical 
with  eternal  happiness,  so  neither  is  the  "  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth"  identical  with  eternal  punishment  ;  but  as  the  nearer  and 
lesser  events  frequently  symbolize  remoter  and  higher  ones  of  kin- 
dred character,  so  here  these  two  contrasted  states  may  justly  be 
considered  as  pointing  forward  to  the  final  judgment.  We  can  only 
regard  the  state  of  suffering  in  Sheol  (a  fuller  discussion  of  which 
is  found  in  note  on  Luke  xvi.  24),  which  the  Scripture  distinguishes 
from  Gehenna,  as  the  immediate-  reference  in  the  "  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth."  That  every  possibility  of  return  is  not  here  to 
be  denied  to  the  rejected  Israelites,  is  indicated,  above  all,  by  Horn, 
xi.  26,  where  the  promise  of  salvation  is  given  to  all  Israel. 

Ver.  13. — In  conclusion,  both  historians  then  relate  that  the 
Saviour,  overcome  by  the  bold  faith  of  the  warrior,  immediately 
healed  the  sick  man.  ('E/caTovTap;^  is  another  form  for  eKarovrap^og, 
the  one  used  in  ver.  1.  "Yyiaivu,  Luke  vii.  10,  means  "  to  be  well  •" 
so  that,  according  to  his  narrative  also,  the  cure  appears  to  have 
been  wrought  suddenly.) 


§  6.  KAISING  OF  THE  YOUNG  MAN  AT  NAIN. 

(Luke  vii.  11-17.) 

This  transaction,  which  Luke  alone  mentions,  is  distinctly  con- 
nected with  the  foregoing  context  by  the  words  iv  ry  t^g,  on  the  next 
day,  ver.  11  ;  we,  therefore,  proceed  here  with  this  paragraph,  and 
the  more  so,  because  verses  16,  17,  where  we  read  of  the  fame  of 
Jesus  beginning  to  extend,  assign  it  plainly  to  the  earlier  period. 


348  LtiKB  VII.  11. 

As  to  the  general  fact  of  a  raising  from  the  dead,  it  is  difficult 
of  apprehension,  on  account  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  fact  of  death, 
and  of  its  nature.  For  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body  is 
not  to  be  viewed  as  absolute,  even  where  corruption  is  evidently 
going  forward,  because  then  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (as  de- 
scribed 1  Cor.  xv.)  would  be  impossible,  and,  at  most,  it  could  only 
be  called  a  new  creation.  But  if  there  remains,  even  in  death,  a 
bond  between  the  higher  vital  principle  and  the  elements  of  the 
body  to  be  raised,  and  if  medical  men  confess,  that,  even  on  grounds 
of  ordinary  experience,  the  determining  of  the  actual  occurrence  of 
death  is,  in  the  highest  degree,  difficult,  then  no  other  assurance 
againt  the  supposition  of  a  trance  in  this  and  the  other  cases  of  rais- 
ing from  the  dead  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  is  possible,  than 
that  which  is  afforded  by  the  word  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
Where  death  is  really  in  appearance  only,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus  (Matth.  ix.  24),  the  mouth  of  truth  expressly 
declared  it,  though  she  was  thought  by  all  to  be  dead  ;  but,  where 
death  is  actually  present,  it  declares  the  fact  with  equal  plainness- 
What  the  short-sighted  eye  of  man  can  perceive  but  imperfectly, 
the  Lord  of  the  world  of  spirits  saw  with  indubitable  certainty.  The 
reality  of  his  miraculous  raisings  from  the  dead  rests  upon  his 
personal  veracity.  But,,  at  the  same  time,  the  view  of  death  just 
given  renders  it  easier  to  picture  to  ourselves  the  awakening. 
For,  as  at  the  resurrection  it  will  take  place  in  all  through  the 
Saviour's  life-giving  power ;  so,  in  the  individual  awakenings,  he 
revived  activity  in  the  organ  that  was  dead,  but  not  destroyed  ;  so 
that  the  soul  (V^A??)  which  had  escaped  might  again  make  use  of  it. 
Hence  every  raising  from  the  dead  is,  so  to  speak,  a  full  restoration 
of  the  entire  relation  between  soul  and  body,  which  had  been  inter- 
rupted ;  while,  in  partial  restorations,  it  is  the  removal  of  only  the 
disturbance  in  this  or  that  function,  with  which  the  organism  of 
soul  and  body  was  affected.  But  the  same  heavenly  power,  which 
is  the  life  itself  (John  i.  4),  effects  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former. 
As  the  source  of  all  individualized  life,  it  can  just  as  well  recal  to 
its  organ  that  which  had  departed,  and  restore  to  harmony  what 
was  disordered,  as  create  what  did  not  exist.  On  questions  such  as 
these — where  the  departed  soul  of  the  person  raised  up  dwelt  in  the 
meantime,  and  whether,  in  the  meanwhile,  it  had  consciousness  or 
not — the  Scriptures,  for  wise  reasons,  give  no  information  ;  and  it  is 
sufficient  for  us  to  know,  that,  in  this  respect,  as  in  general,  the 
state  of  the  dying  influences  their  future  condition.  But  it  is  all 
the  more  important  to  conceive  of  the  raising  up  of  the  dead  as  not 
unconnected  with  what  is  moral.  The  corporeal  resurrection  was  to 
be  a  means  of  spiritual  vivification,  not  merely  for  the  relatives  and 
for  all  who  saw  or  heard  of  the  event,  but  particularly  for  the  person 


LUKE  VII.  10-16.  349 

who  was  himself  raised  up.*  So  extraordinary  an  event  could  not 
hut  affect  his  inward  life  decisively,  and  render  the  man  so  raised  up 
a  living  witness  to  our  Lord's  miraculous  power.f 

Ver.  11,  12.  —  The  town  where  Jesus  restored  the  son  to  his  af- 
flicted mother,  was  called  Nain  (perhaps  from  trss,  pleasant},  a 
small  town  of  Galilee  not  far  from  Capernaum.  (On  licavog  and  irofaug, 
see  Matth.  viii.  30,  compared  with  Luke  viii.  32.)  As  he  approached 
the  town  gate  (rrvhrf),  the  Saviour  saw  a  dead  person  carried  out  ; 
it  was  the  only  son  of  a  widow.  (MovoyevTfc,  as  in  Luke  viii.  42  ;  ix. 
38  ;  Heb.  xi.  17,  in  the  sense  of  "  only."  But  in  the  idea  of  "  only," 
as  in  the  Hebrew  T»h;,  there  is  included  also  that  of  "dear," 
"valued.") 

Ver.  13,  14.  —  Sympathy  for  the  mother  (on  <mhayxvi&odai,  see 
note  on  Luke  i.  78)  is  specified  as  that  which  determined  Jesus  to 
waken  him  who  reposed  in  the  coffin.  But  that  does  not  exclude  a 
regard  for  the  man  himself  in  the  transaction.  Man,  as  a  conscious 
being,  can  never  be  merely  a  means,  as  would  be  the  case  here,  if 
the  mother's  joy  were  the  sole  purpose  of  the  raising  of  the  young 
man.  It  is  rather  the  immediate  result  of  the  action,  noticeable  by 
the  bystanders,  but  the  less  essential  one  ;  its  concealed  result  was 
the  spiritual  awakening  of  the  youth  to  a  higher  existence,  by 
means  of  which  even  the  mother's  joy  first  became  true  and  lasting. 
(By  oopog  is  not  meant  a  closed  receptacle,  but  an  open  bier.  The 
Hebrews  called  it  rnete.,  lectulus.) 

Ver.  15,  16.  —  The  Saviour  raised  the  dead  man,  without  contact, 
by  his  mere  word  (compare  Elisha's  raising  the  dead,  2  Kings  iv. 
34),  which  should  be  viewed  as  the  audible  expression  of  the  invisi- 
ble agency  of  his  Spirit,  by  which  the  soul  and  body  (fywxn  and  o&fM) 
were  restored  to  their  true  relation  in  the  young  man.  In  the 
neighbourhood,  the  bodily  raising  produced  a  salutary  spiritual  ex- 
citement, and  that,  in  the  first  instance,  as  was  natural,  under  the 
form  of  fear  of  God  (</>o/3o£  TOT)  Gew).  Penetrated  by  the  holiness 
of  Christ's  work,  they  rightly  conclude  that  such  holiness,  united  to 
such  power,  indicated  a  definite  mission  of  Christ  from  a  higher 
world.  They  view  the  miracle,  entirely  in  accordance  with  its  pur- 
pose, as  an  evidence  of  his  prophetic  dignity.  (The  expression  : 
,'  a  great  prophet,  refers  to  the  greatness  of  the  mira- 


*  Strauss  thinks  a  reference  to  the  persona  raised  up  improbable  (B.  ii.  S.  147,  second 
ed.),  because  it  is  not  anywhere  specially  noticed.  But  this  reference  did  not  need  to  be 
particularly  mentioned,  because  it  was  a  matter  of  course.  Jesus  always  wrought  for 
the  salvation  of  men,  in  every  word,  and  in  his  most  casual  intercourse  with  them  ;  how 
much  more,  then,  in  an  awakening  from  the  dead  I 

f  According  to  John  xi.  41,  42,  Lazarus  was  raised  for  the  glory  of  God  ;  but  that 
does  not  exclude  a  view  to  his  own  perfecting  by  his  death  and  resurrection  :  it  includes 
it  ;  for  a  vivification  of  the  whole  man  is  precisely  the  highest  glory  of  God. 


350  LUKE  VII.  16,  IT ;   MATTHEW  VIII.  14, 15. 

cle  ;  raising  from  the  dead  was  peculiar  to  the  chiefs  of  the  pro- 
phetic order.     On  emoKKTTTeodai,  see  Luke  i.  68.) 

Ver.  17. — By  individual  flashes  of  his  divine  power  like  this, 
darting  hither  and  thither,  the  Saviour  aroused  in  the  whole  nation 
the  consciousness  that  great  things  were  before  them.  From  the 
ardent  anticipation  connected  with  that  consciousness,  there  arose  a 
deep  sense  of  misery  and  present  need,  and  a  confident  courage  for 
the  future — spiritual  elements  which  our  Saviour  understood  how  to 
guide  and  to  employ  for  his  holy  purposes. 


§  7.  HEALING  OF  PETER'S  MOTHER-IN-LAW. 

(Matth.  viii.  14-17  ;  Mark  L  29-34;  Luke  iv.  31-41.) 

After  having  narrated  (Luke  iv.  31-37)  the  history  of  the  cure 
of  a  demoniac  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  which,  as  it  contains 
nothing  peculiar,  we  passed  over,  referring  the  reader  to  Matth.  viii. 
28,  ff.,  Luke  immediately  subjoins  the  healing  of  Peter's  mother-in- 
law  with  the  words  :  dvaardg  IK  rift  ovvayuyrig.  Mark  also  (i.  29) 
introduces  this  narrative  with  the  same  words,  while  Matthew  con- 
nects it  loosely  with  the  account  of  the  cure  of  the  centurion's  ser- 
vant. It  is  surprising  that  Luke  here  mentions  Simon  Peter  as  a 
well-known  person,  without  having  previously  named  him  ;  this  fact 
might  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  Luke's  being  entitled  to 
suppose  Peter  known  to  Theophilus.  Still  it  can  hardly  be  denied, 
that  this  circumstance  also  strongly  favours  the  view,  that  Luke  in- 
corporated memoirs  into  his  Gospel ;  and  as  Peter  was  mentioned 
in  them,  Luke  also  named  him,  without  noticing  that  no  allusion 
had  been  yet  made  to  his  connexion  with  Jesus.  Matthew  and 
Mark  had  already  prefixed  a  short  mention  of  Peter,  Matth.  iv.  18, 
ff.  ;  Mark  i.  16,  ff.  The  fact  itself  contains  nothing  particular  ;  the 
general  observations  on  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  are  applicable 
to  this  case  also.  (See  note  on  Matth.  viii.  1.) 

Ver.  14,  15. — The  mention  of  Peter's  mother-in-law  (TrevOepa), 
implies  that  that  apostle  was  married.  According  to  1  Cor.  ix.  5, 
Peter  did  not  forsake  his  wife  in  the  exercise  of  his  apostolical  call- 
ing, but  had  her  to  accompany  him  in  his  missionary  journeys.  (To 
attempt  to  explain  the  form  of  the  disease  from  Luke's  expression  : 
TTvpero)  jweyaAw  avve%eo6ai,  cannot  but  be  unsatisfactory.)  In  this 
case,  our  Lord  again  wrought  by  immediate  contact  (f/i/>a~o  rij$  xeipog), 
and  restored  her  so  perfectly  that  she  was  at  once  able  to  employ 
herself.  The  dtaicoveiv  avrolg,  ministering  to  them,  must  be  viewed 
only  as  the  result  of  the  cure  ;  its  proper  intention  we  must  in  this 
case  also  regard  as  a  moral  one. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  16, 17.  351 

Ver.  16. — The  news  of  the  miraculous  cures  wrought  by  Jesus, 
attracted  multitudes  to  him,  supplicating  help.  They  came  after 
sunset,  because  the  heat  of  day  would  have  been  oppressive  to  the 
sick.  The  Saviour,  surrounded  by  crowds  of  such  unfortunate  indi- 
viduals, who  were  bowed  down  by  bodily  pains,  presents,  in  the 
healing  agency  by  which  he  relieves  external  necessities,  an  emblem 
of  the  spiritual  agency  which  he  incessantly  exercises  within  the 
hearts  of  men  by  the  power  of  his  salvation.  Only  we  must  sup- 
pose, that,  even  in  the  corporeal  deliverance  which  he  granted,  he 
would  constantly  lead  their  minds  beyond  the  crowd  of  earthly 
wants,  to  the  malady  of  the  soul  and  its  cure.  On  the  6aifj.ovt%6fj.evot) 
demoniacs,  as  well  as  on  his  forbidding  the  demons  to  speak  of  him 
(Mark  i.  34 ;  Luke  iv.  41),  see  more  fully  hi  note  on  Matth.  viii. 
28,  ff. 

Ver.  17. — Matthew,  who,  as  writing  for  Jews,  takes  pains  to  con- 
nect the  phenomena  in  the  life  of  Jesus  with  the  Old  Testament  de- 
lineations of  the  Messiah,  here  quotes  Isa.  liii.  4,  with  the  formula 
so  familiar  to  him,  OTTW^  Trkrjpudq.  (See  note  on  Matth.  i.  22.)  The 
Evangelist,  moreover,  again  departs  from  the  text  of  the  LXX., 
who  thus  translate  the  Hebrew  text :  OVTO$  Ta$  dfiapria^  i}\i&v  Qepei, 
KOL  -Tre.pl  Tjfi&v  ddvvarat,  in  which  form  the  words  were  altogether  un- 
suitable for  his  purpose.  He  follows  the  original  precisely,  and 
translates  ^h  by  dadeveta,  and  a'N5»  by  voaog  ;  the  verbs  K»S  and  V^o, 
used  by  the  prophet,  Matthew  renders  by  kapftdveiv  and  fiaord&iv. 
This  independent  treatment  of  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment forbids  us  to  regard  the  Greek  text  of  Matthew  in  the  light  of 
an  ordinary  translation — i.  e.,  one  in  which  the  translator  does  not 
allow  himself  any  free  action.  But  the  bringing  forward  of  just  this 
passage  does  not  seem  agreeable  to  the  purpose  designed  by  the  con- 
text, particularly  as  in  1  Peter  ii.  24,  the  same  passage  is  explained 
of  the  vicarious  satisfaction  of  our  Saviour,  and  the  whole  53d  chap- 
ter of  Isaiah  is  a  description  of  the  Messiah  as  suffering  for  sinful 
mankind.  But  the  apparent  difference  in  the  explanation  of  the 
same  passage  by  two  writers  in  the  New  Testament  disappears,  if 
we  keep  in  view,  that  physical  sufferings  (as  the  acme  of  which  we 
are  to  regard  death,  see  Eom.  vi.  23)  are  only  the  other  aspect  of  the 
consequences  of  sin.  The  Saviour,  who  was  called  to  restore  the 
original  state  of  mankind,  removed  external  suffering  no  less  than 
internal  ;  and,  indeed,  ordinarily,  the  former  first,  because  deliver- 
ance from  it  is  wont  to  be  a  means  of  arousing  a  desire  for  deliver- 
ance from  the  miseries  of  the  soul,  and  quickening  the  faith  in  the 
possibility  of  that  deliverance.  The  referring  of  Christ's  saving 
efficacy  to  bodily  sufferings  no  more  excludes  the  extending  of  it  to 
spiritual  sufferings,  than,  on  the  other  hand,  the  referring  of  it  to 
spiritual  sufferings  excludes  its  extension  to  such  as  are  bodily.  The 


352  MATTHEW  VIII.  17 ;  LUKE  IV.  42. 

whole  man  is  the  object  of  salvation,  body  as  well  as  soul.  The  only 
point  of  difficulty  is,  that  Jiapfidveiv,  taking,  and  fiaord&iv,  bearing, 
are  used  of  Christ's  relation  to  the  infirmities  and  diseases,  as  well  as 
of  his  relation  to  the  inward  sufferings  of  humanity.  (See  John  i.  29, 
where  our  Lord  is  called,  dpvbg  rov  Qeov  6  alpuv  rr\v  d^a^riav  TOV  noa- 
juou,  the  lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away,  etc.)  It  would  seem  that  the 
exercise  of  healing  energy  was  by  no  means  any  thing  so  difficult  and 
productive  of  suffering,  as  that  Paard&iv,  bear,  would  be  an  appro- 
priate term  to  apply  to  it.  Hence  we  are  tempted  to  interpret  /la/i- 
pdveiv,  take,  and  fiaard&iv,  bear,  as  simply  =  dfyaiQeiv,  take  away, 
which,  however,  is  not  at  all  in  accordance  with  the  context  of  the 
passage  Isa.  liii.,  where  the  Saviour  appears  in  the  character  of  a 
sufferer.  This  difficulty  is  solved,  however,  if  we  conceive  the 
healing  energy  of  the  Saviour  more  in  its  essential  character. 
Viewing  the  Saviour,  as  we  must,  as  truly  human,  as  well  as  truly 
divine,  we  cannot  but  think,  that  the  healing  energy  of  our  Lord 
consisted  in  a  pouring  and  breathing  forth  of  his  vital  fulness 
— that,  moreover,  his  whole  soul  entered,  with  heartfelt  sympathy, 
into  the  necessities  of  the  sufferers — that  he  really  suffered  with 
them.  As,  therefore,  physical  exertion  produced  physical  weariness 
(John  iv.  6),  so  also  spiritual  exertion  would  exhaust  him  spiritually. 
Hence  we  may  say,  that  in  respect  to  infirmities  and  diseases  also, 
Jesus  laboured  in  his  soul,  and  bore  the  sin  of  the  world. 


§  8.  PETER'S  DRAUGHT  OF  FISHES. 

(Lukeiv.  42-44;  [Mark  i.  35-39;]  Luke  v.  1-11.) 

The  idea  just  suggested  receives  confirmation  from  the  succeed- 
ing verses  in  Luke  and  Mark.  For  early  next  morning  the  Saviour 
retired  into  solitude  (elg  epj^ov  TOTTOV)  for  prayer.  Mark  uses  £vvv%ov 
instead  of  the  more  usual  expression  fyepag  yevopevrjg  in  Luke, 
for  which  some  Codd.  read  Kvvv^a,  occurs  only  in  this  pas- 
sage. We  are  frequently  told  that  Jesus  spent  the  night  in  silent 
prayer.  (See  Luke  v.  16  ;  vi.  12  ;  ix.  28.)  We  must  believe  that 
this  retirement  for  solitary  prayer  proceeded  from  a  real  necessity, 
unless  our  Lord  is  believed  to  have  done  something  unmeaning,  or 
merely  apparent — which  would  favour  Docetic  notions.  According 
to  the  Scriptures,  Jesus  was  in  all  things  (KCLTO,  -navrd)  like  men,  ex- 
cepting sin,  that  he  might  be  merciful  (t-Ae^wv,  Heb.  ii.  17).  And 
it  is  in  just  this  view  of  our  Lord  that  rich  consolation  is  afforded, 
and  the  possibility  is  provided  of  taking  Christ  for  our  example. 
Regarded  in  his  character  as  man,  the  prayers  of  Jesus  (which  must, 
indeed,  be  conceived  as  uninterrupted,  agreeably  to  his  own  com- 


LUKE  IV.  42,  43  ;   V.  1.  353 

mand  to  us  [Luke  xviii.  1],  but  still  as  having  their  points  of  eleva- 
tion in  peculiarly  consecrated  moments)  were,  so  to  speak,  seasons 
of  heavenly  refreshment  and  strengthening  from  above,  in  order  to 
overcome  the  power  of  darkness  that  incessantly  assailed  him.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  these  moments  of  prayer  are  to  be  viewed  as  sea- 
sons when  the  Saviour  was  absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
high  purposes  of  the  Father  with  him,  and  in  the  depths  of  divine 
love,  in  order  to  consecrate  himself  more  and  more  to  the  comple- 
tion of  his  work. 

Yer.  43. — The  people,  however,  touched  with  the  impression 
which  the  demeanour  of  Jesus  produced,  hastened  after  him  into  the 
wilderness  ;  and  Peter,  always  the  most  active  among  the  apostles, 
goes  to  Jesus  to  inform  him  that  the  multitude  was  seeking  for  him. 
But  our  Lord  withdraws,  with  the  observation,  that  he  must  extend 
his  ministry  over  the  whole  of  Israel.  The  ministry  of  the  Saviour, 
according  to  its  entire  plan,  was  not  intended  to  be  exercised  con- 
tinually in  the  same  place,  but  to  arouse  from  its  death  slumber  the 
mass  of  the  nation.  Hence  he  never  stayed  long  in  a  place,  but 
journeyed  hither  and  thither.  Meantime  he  limited  his  more  special 
oversight  of  souls  to  the  narrower  and  wider  circles  of  his  disciples, 
who  so  yielded  themselves  to  his  sanctifying  influence,  that  they 
forsook  all — came  out  from  their  previous  connexions,  and  followed 
him.  (Mark  [i.  38]  uses  the  expression  i%6[t€vai  KWjuoTrd/le^,  which 
occurs  only  in  this  passage.  By  /fw/ioiroAe^,  he  means  villages 
of  some  size,  approaching  towns  in  extent.  The  participle  £%6- 
fievo^  is  to  be  taken  as  in  %tepa  exopevr]  [Luke  xiii.  33  ;  Acts  xiii. 
44],  in  the  sense  of  "  near,"  "  neighbouring."  The  words  in  Mark  : 
d$  TOVTO  t&hTJkvOa,  for  this  have  I  come  forth,  which  corresponds  to 
Luke's  expression  :  el$  TOVTO  ditioTatyai,  for  this  am  I  sent,  are  also 
remarkable.  It  is  true,  there  is  the  various  reading  in  Mark,  ihrj- 
Xvda,  which,  as  being  the  more  common  phrase  [Zpxwdai  sc.  d^Tov  noa- 

,  must  be  regarded  as  inferior  in  value  to  the  less  common.  'E|ep- 
i,  come  forth,  refers  to  the  formula  used  by  John  :  K&pxeodat  IK 
TOV  Qeov,  in  TOV  rrarpof,  come  forth  from  God,  from  the  Father,  with 
which  £K  T&V  ovoav&v  would  be  synonymous.  [See  John  viii.  42  ; 
xiii.  3  ;  xvi.  27,  28  ;  xvii.  8.]  In  ZfrXifavda,  have  come  forth,  a  dis- 
tinct reference  is  implied  to  the  original  relation  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father ;  while  d-e<7raA/«M,  have  been  sent,  refers  only  to  the  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  as  determined  by  God.) 

Luke  v.  1. — With  an  indefinite  transition,  the  narrative  of 
Peter's  draught  of  fishes  is  appended  ;  for  the  multitude,  whose  in- 
convenient proximity  is  here  spoken  of  (K-mnEioBai,  to  crowd,  to  press 
upon,  a  sign  of  eagerness  indeed,  but  still  an  annoyance  to  Jesus),  is 
not  the  same  as  that  mentioned  in  ver.  42,  because  the  clause  inter- 
posed, he  was  preaching  in  the  synagogues,  etc.  (j]v  nrjpvoauv  h> 

VOL.  I.— 23 


354  LUKE  V.  1-5. 


rift  Fa/U/la«zf),  resumes  the  indefinite  character.  It  is, 
therefore,  uncertain  whether  this  narrative  should  be  connected  im- 
mediately with  the  preceding. 

With  respect  to  the  narrative  itself  of  Peter's  draught  of  fishes, 
it  has  been  already  remarked,  in  the  note  on  Matth  iv.  18,  that  in 
the  mere  outline  there  given  of  the  calling  of  Peter  (on  which  event 
John  alone  sheds  adequate  light),  the  mention  of  the  circumstance, 
that  Peter  was  called  to  become  a  fisher  of  men,  was  introduced 
into  the  picture  merely  as  an  individual  feature,  without  our  being 
able  to  maintain  that  this  expression  of  our  Lord's  was  uttered  im- 
mediately at  his  first  meeting  with  Peter.  Luke  details  here  more 
circumstantially  the  occurrence,  in  connection  with  which  our  Lord 
designated  Peter  a  fisher  of  men  ;  but  he  takes  for  granted  that 
Jesus  had,  on  a  former  occasion,  become  acquainted  with  Peter,  and 
only  shews  how,  on  this  occasion,  the  exalted  greatness  of  Jesus 
opened  upon  him  with  unsuspected  splendour,  and  thus  powerfully 
attached  him  to  his  person.  (The  Lake  of  Gennesaret,  on  the  shore 
of  which  Christ  here  appears  as  teaching,  derives  its  name  from  the 
district  Tevvrjodp.  Josephus  says  [B.  J.  iii.  10,  7]  :  'H  6e  "ki\ivr]  Tev- 
vTjodp  d-nb  TTJS  7rpooe%ov(;  %wpaf  Katelrai.  The  lake  is  also  called  QdXaa- 
aa  -r/fc  ra/UA<wa?,  Matth.  iv.  18.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  is  called 
n-iss  &•;,  Sea  of  Chinnereth,  Josh.  xiii.  27.  The  Chaldee  spelling  of 
the  name  has  the  various  forms,  ">&«,  IDJIS,  i&'isa  [See  Winer's 
"  Realworterbuch,"  s.  v.~\  The  extent  of  the  lake  is  given  by  Jose- 
phus (ut  sup.)  as  120  stadia  in  length,  and  40  in  breadth. 

Ver.  2,  3.  —  The  pressure  of  the  people  caused  Jesus  to  leave 
the  land  and  enter  one  of  the  boats.  This  was  drawn  up  on  land, 
as  was  usually  the  case  with  small  vessels  ;  Jesus  desired  Peter,  to 
whom  the  boat  belonged,  to  push  it  off  from  the  land  into  deep 
water  (a-nrd  rr^q  yr\<;  Kiravayayelv),  and  then  taught  from  the  ship,  un- 
molested by  the  crowding  of  the  multitude.  This  setting  of  the 
boat  afloat  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  bringing  it  out  into  the 
midst  of  the  sea  (eTravayayav  elg  TO  ftddog  =  altum.,  ver.  4),  which 
was  done  for  the  purpose  of  fishing. 

Yer.  4,  5.  —  After  his  discourse  was  finished;  and  the  people,  con- 
sequently, dismissed,  our  Lord  orders  Peter  to  cast  out  the  net  for 
a  draught.  (Xa/la£w,  properly  "to  slacken,"  "  let  go"  —  e.  g.,  a  bow, 
then  "  to  sink,"  "  let  down.")  Peter,  disheartened  by  a  whole 
night's  unsuccessful  toil  —  a  circumstance  which  shews,  that  at  that 
time  the  Apostles  still  pursued  their  business,  at  times  at  least  — 
complies,  more  out  of  deference  to  the  dignity  of  Jesus,  than  from 
faith  in  a  successful  result.  (Luke  alone  uses  'Emo-dr^,  Master. 
See  viii.  24,  45  ;  ix.  33,  49  ;  xvii.  13.  He  calls  Jesus  by  that  name 
instead  of  the  Hebrew  "  Rabbi,"  which  he  could  not  assume,  as 


LUKE  V.  5-10.  355 


being  known  to  his  Greek  readers.     But  lie  uses  diddoicakos  ,  teacher, 
for  it  also  —  e.  g.}  vii.  40.) 

Ver.  6,  7.  —  Peter  complies  with  the  Saviour's  desire,  and  they 
enclose  a  multitude  of  fishes  in  their  net,  so  that  it  broke,  and  their 
companions  were  obliged  to  bring  the  other  boat  along-side,  in  order 
to  take  in  the  abundance  bestowed.  (Bv6ifro6at  occurs  only  in  this 
passage  with  the  signification  of  "  sinking  deeper,"  "  sinking."  The 
word  is  used  figuratively  in  1  Tim.  vl  9.) 

According  to  the  conception  of  the  historian,  the  abundant  pro- 
duce of  this  draught,  which  forms  a  contrast  with  the  unsuccessful 
fishing  through  the  night,  when  Peter  toiled  alone,  are  to  be  viewed 
as  the  result  of  Christ's  presence,  and  the  effect  of  his  power. 
Christ  is,  therefore,  here  set  forth  as  the  Sovereign  of  nature,  who, 
by  the  secret  magic  of  his  will,  had  power  to  direct  even  what  is 
unconscious,  according  to  his  purposes  ;  just  as  the  same  power  of 
the  unsearchable  God,  who  governs  the  universe,  year  by  year  con- 
ducts the  fish  of  the  sea  and  the  birds  of  the  air  in  their  migra- 
tions by  invisible  clues.  Phenomena,  analogous  to  the  great 
miracles  of  nature,  appear  clustered  around  our  Lord,  as  around 
their  centre  ;  he  rules  as  a  visible,  personally  present  God,  in 
the  wide  realm  of  existence  ;  by  invisible,  mysterious  ties,  all  is 
connected  with  the  word  of  his  mouth  —  the  expression  of  his  holy 
will.  And  what  are  apparently  unconscious  movements  and  im- 
pulses of  nature,  appear,  when  controlled  by  his  will,  directed  to  the 
highest  moral  ends. 

Ver.  8,  9.  —  The  sense  of  a  special  divine  agency,  which  pro- 
claimed itself  to  them  as  emanating  from  Jesus,  overwhelmed  them 
all  with  astonishment  (6dfij3o(f)  and  fear  ;  but  in  the  excitable  Peter, 
expressed  itself  at  once  in  act  and  word.  His  sinfulness  appeared 
to  him  in  such  glaring  contrast  to  the  heavenly  power  displayed  be- 
fore him  in  the  Saviour,  that  he  fell  down,  partly  adoring  and  partly 
praying  :  Depart  from  me  (t?|£A0e  an'  fyov).  In  all  this  is  evidently 
involved  the  idea  that  what  is  divine,  and  what  is  not  so,  are  incom- 
patible with  each  other.  He  who  beholds  God  must  die  (Judges  vi.  23  ; 
xiii.  22  ;  Dan.  x.  17)  —  an  idea  which  is  perfectly  true  of  the  revelation 
of  the  divine  character  in  the  law  —  on  whose  level  Peter  still  stood  — 
made  in  the  thunders  of  Sinai,  Exod.  xix.  12.  But  in  God's  gracious 
revelation  in  the  Saviour,  his  nearness  to  sinful  man  is  not  only  en- 
durable, but  even  animating  and  refreshing  ;  since,  not  on  a  sudden, 
but  gradually,  it  makes  old  things  pass  away,  and  creates  things 
that  are  new.  For  this  reason  also  our  Lord  quiets  his  anxiety,  and 
calls  upon  him  to  be  a  fellow-worker  for  the  kingdom  which  he  had 
come  to  establish. 

Ver.  10.  —  The  words  "  henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  men"  (d-rrb  TOV 
vvv  ear)  ^uyptiv  dvdpuTrovg)  ,  express  the  main  point  in  the  whole  transac- 


356  LUKE  V.  9, 10. 

tion,  to  which  not  only  the  draught  of  fishes,  but  also  the  strengthen- 
ing of  the  Apostles  in  the  faith,  were  subordinate.  We  observe  here, 
for  the  first  time,  a  characteristic  of  Christ's  actions,  which  we  shall 
have  frequent  occasion  to  notice  in  future.  The  Saviour  teaches  by 
actions — he  speaks  by  deeds  to  those  around  ;  penetrating  with  deep 
spiritual  glance  into  the  essence  of  things,  he  is  enabled  to  deal 
with  the  formations  of  nature  in  such  a  manner  as  to  use  them  as  a 
rich  system  of  symbols  or  hieroglyphics.*  Something  analogous 
may  be  observed  even  in  the  conduct  of  noble  and  exalted  person- 
ages on  earth.  The  ideas  which  inspire  them  are  shadowed  forth  in 
their  doings  ;  and  under  their  influence  the  most  insignificant  rela- 
tions become  ennobled.  A  system  of  symbolical  actions  of  this 
kind  is  expressly  seen  in  the  ministry  of  the  ancient  prophets.  (See 
Jerem.  xiii.  1,  ff. ;  Ezek.  xii.  1,  ff. ;  xxiv.  1,  ff.)  Of  all  the  actions 
of  Jesus,  none  presents  this  characteristic  so  undeniably  as  the 
cursing  of  the  fig-tree  (Matth.  xxi.  18,  ff.),  which  without  such  a 
theory,  involves  inexplicable  difficulties.  The  advantages  of  a  lan- 
guage of  fact  like  this,  are  self-evident  ;  where  fancy  and  feeling 
predominate,  as  is  always  the  case  wherever  the  mind  has  not  risen 
above  that  state  which  is  marked  by  the  absence  of  reflection,  a 
lively,  concrete  fact  always  produces  infinitely  more  effect  than  an 
abstract  argument.  In  reference  to  the  question  as  to  the  import  of 
this  transaction,  we  are  met  by  the  circumstance,  that  an  occurrence 
similar  to  this,  which  introduces  the  more  immediate  connexion  of 
Peter  with  the  Saviour,  concludes  it  also.  (John  xxi.)  A  symboli- 
cal intimation  of  the  subsequent  spiritual  ministry  of  Peter,  who  is 
regarded  as  the  representative  of  the  apostolical  body,  meets  us  at 
the  beginning  and  the  close  of  Peter's  connexion  with  his  Lord  on 
earth.  In  the  expression  :  Thou  shalt  catch  men  (Hoy  $uryp&v 
dvOpti-xovg) — instead  of  which  we  find  in  Matth,  iv.  19,  and  Mark  i. 
17,  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men  (jrotijoo,)  vfid^  d/Uelf  dvOpw-nuv) — 
that  they  have  to  gain  over  others  to  themselves,  is  not  the  only 
point  of  comparison  with  the  spiritual  work  of  the  Apostles  ;  other 
and  more  minute  relations  evidently  present  themselves.  In  the 
first  place  the  idea  of  catching  includes  the  relation  of  the  con- 

*  Augustine  observes  appropriately  on  this  point :  Interrogermis  ipsa  miracida,  quid 
nobis  loquantur  de  Christo ;  habent  enim,  si  intettigantur,  linguam  suam.  Nam  quia  ipse 
Christus  verbum  est,  etiam  factum  verbi  verbum  nobis  est — i.  e.,  "  Let  us  ask  the  miracles 
for  their  testimony  concerning  Christ;  for  they  have,  when  understood,  a  language  of 
their  own.  For  because  Christ  himself  is  the  Word,  also  the  deed  of  the  Word  is  a 
word  to  us."  (Tract  xxiv.  in  Joann.  Opp.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  349,  edit  Bened.)  With  these 
words  a  beautiful  passage  from  Hamann's  works  (pt.  i.,  p.  50)  may  be  compared,  who, 
instructed  by  that  Spirit,  who  always  teaches  the  same  truth  in  all  places  and  at  all  times, 
writes  quite  independently  of  that  Father,  as  follows : — "  Every  Bible  narrative  bears  the 
image  of  man — a  body,  which  is  ashes  and  worthless — that  is  the  outward  letter ;  but 
besides  that  a  soul — the  breath  of  God,  the  life  and  the  light,  which  shines  in  the  dark, 
and  cannot  be  comprehended  by  the  darkness." 


LUKE  V.  10, 11.  357 

scious  agent  to  an  unconscious  subject,  and  the  tatter's  being  over- 
come by  the  former.  This  is  precisely  the  relation  that  subsisted 
between  the  Apostles — as  the  representatives  of  the  Paoikeia,  king- 
dom— and  the  world.  While  the  former  represent  the  higher  prin- 
ciple of  life,  those  who  are  in  the  world  are  in  a  state  of  ignorance 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  higher  life.  Next,  the  figure  of  catching 
fish  refers  to  the  transference  of  the  convert  from  the  old  element 
of  life,  to  the  pure,  holy  element  of  the  Gospel,  on  which  import  of 
the  figure  the  hymn,  ascribed  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  dwells  in 
the  following  strain : — 

2o3rep  'Irjaov  Saviour  Jesus  ! 

Fisher  of  men, 
Even  the  saved  ! 

Tlekdyovt;  Kaieiag  From  the  ocean  of  sin 

&JVQVC;  Enticing  the  holy  fish, 

e%6pov  From  the  hostile  wave 

^  Seted^wv  By  thy  sweet  life. 

Allusions  to  this  transition  from  the  old  element  of  life  into  the 
new  one  of  Christianity,  are  often  found  in  the  early  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  use  of  the  name  lx,0v$,  fishes,  of  Christians.  (See 
Suiceri  tJies.  eccl.,  s.  v.,  dfaevg.)  Even  in  the  Old  Testament  there 
exist  the  elements  of  this  comparison.  See  Jerem.  xvi.  16,  where 
the  first  hemistich  runs  thus  in  the  LXX.  :  'Idov,  £y<i>  amKH-eAAw 
rovg  d  A,  i  e  I  g  rovg  rroAAoi)^,  keyei  Kvpio$y  nai  dhievoovoiv  avrovg.  Par- 
allel with  this  the  second  hemistich  has — 'ATTOCTTS/L/IW  ravg  Trokkovg 
drjpevrdg  ical  drjpevcovoiv  avrovg. 

Ver.  11. — This  miraculous  event  drew  the  bond  between  the  dis- 
ciples and  the  Saviour  more  closely  ;  they  left  their  worldly  em- 
ployment, and,  following  Christ,  espoused  that  spiritual  calling 
which  he  pointed  out  to  them  in  its  analogy  with  their  former  ex- 
ternal one.  The  leaving  and  following  (dfaevai  and  dicohovdeiv)  are 
not,  however,  to  be  viewed  as  an  outward  act  merely,  but  pre- 
eminently as  an  inward  transaction,  of  which  the  external  was  but 
a  visible  expression.  The  power  of  the  higher  life  in  Christ  which 
seized  them,  liberated  them  spiritually  from  earthly  fetters,  and 
joined  them  to  their  Lord  by  invisible  bonds.  Externally  they  did, 
even  at  a  later  period,  return  to  their  craft.  (See  note  on  John 
xxi.  3,  ff.) 


858  MATTHEW  VIII.  18-24. 

§  9.  JESUS  STILLS  THE  SEA. 

(Matth.  viii.  18-27  ;  Mark  iv.  35-41 ;  Luke  viii.  22-25.) 

Matthew  apparently  connects  the  following  event  with  the 
healing  of  Peter's  mother-in-law  yet  really  with  a  situation  (viii. 
18)  which  cannot  have  immediately  succeeded  that  event.  Mark 
connects  it  directly  with  the  parables  of  the  sower,  lamp,  and  corn- 
field ;  in  Luke  it  is  attached  to  the  preceding  context  merely  by 
the  loose  expression,  iv  fiia  r&v  fytepwv,  on  one  of  the  days.  The 
first  verses  of  this  section  in  Matthew  (viii.  19-22)  are,  moreover, 
parallel  with  a  passage  in  Luke  (ix.  57,  ff.),  separated  from  the  first 
passage  (viii.  22,  ff.)  by  a  wide  interval.  Further,  the  words  Matth. 
viii.  19-22,  are  rather  an  introduction,  than  an  integral  part  of  the 
narrative.  Luke  introduces  them  at  a  later  period  (ix.  57,  ff.)  in  a 
more  precise  connexion,  and  in  a  more  complete  form.  For  the  in- 
terpretation of  them  we  refer,  therefore,  to  that  passage.  Matthew 
seems  to  have  inserted  them  here  in  the  section  which  treats  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus,  to  bring  out  the  contrast  with  the  all-command- 
ing will  of  Jesus  ;  and  to  make  apparent,  that  the  greatness  of  the 
requirement  to  follow  him  who  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head,  is,  on 
the  other  hand,  modified  by  the  fact  that  he  governs  the  elements. 
With  respect  to  the  fact  itself,  it  exhibits  Christ  as  the  Lord  of 
nature  in  a  new  aspect,  and  as  calming  and  pacifying  its  throes  and 
convulsions.  Sin,  which,  in  its  fearful  effects,  disturbed  even  the 
physical  portion  of  existence,  is  thus  represented  as  overcome  by  the 
Prince  of  Peace  in  the  most  various  forms  of  its  manifestation.  (Isa. 
ix.  6.)  In  so  far  as  what  is  external  is  always  a  mirror  of  what  is 
internal,  this,  and  similar  events  in  the  evangelical  history,  express 
the  analogous  power  of  the  Saviour  over  the  agitations  of  the  in- 
ward life.  (See  note  on  Matth.  xiv.  21,  22.)  The  Saviour  in  a  ship, 
accompanied  by  his  disciples,  tossed  on  the  waves  of  the  sea,  is  a 
natural  antitype  to  the  ark  containing  the  representatives  of  the  in- 
cipient human  race,  and  a  prefiguration  of  the  church  in  its  relation 
to  the  sea  of  evil  (TreAayof  «a/aa£)  in  the  world. 

Ver.  23,  24. — Our  Lord,  intending  to  pass  over  to  the  eastern 
shore  of  the  lake  (ver.  18),  entered  the  ship,  and  fell  asleep.  Mark, 
with  his  usual  care,  finishes  the  picture  more  minutely.  On  the 
one  hand  he  observes,  that  in  company  with  that  one  ship  other 
smaller  ones  crossed  (iv.  36),  and  on  the  other,  he  describes  precisely 
the  Saviour's  position.  (He  was  lying  in  the  hinder  part  of  the 
vessel  \Trpv\iva.  Acts  xxvii.  29,  41],  resting  his  head.  HpooKeQdhcuav 
is  probably  a  support  to  lean  against ;  in  other  cases,  generally  a, 
"  pillow.")  While  Jesus  slept,  a  sudden  hurricane  arose.  (Instead 


MATTHEW  VIII.  24-28.  359 


of  AaTAai/',  which  Mark  and  Luke  use,  Matthew  has  aeioufy,  which 
denotes  properly  "  earthquakes,"  then  "  violent  agitations"  in  gene- 
ral.0 The  LXX.  use  it  for  •»?<?). 

Ver.  25,  26.  —  Though  of  little  faith,  because  they  feared  being 
swallowed  up  together  with  the  sleeping  Saviour  (on  6Xry6moro<;,  see 
note  on  Matth.  vi.  30),  yet  the  disciples  are  believing,  since  they  ask 
deliverance  from  the  Lord  ;  and  the  Saviour,  not  putting  their 
faith  to  shame,  produced  a  perfect  calm.  (TaXrjvij  =  msfc1?,  Psalm 
cvii.  29,  in  Symmachus.)  It  is  remarkable,  that  Jesus'  word  ap- 
pears not  merely  as  checking  the  lawless  course  of  the  elements,  and 
reducing  the  scattered  powers  to  oneness  and  harmony  but  that, 
according  to  Mark,  he  quiets  the  waves  of  the  sea  by  a  direct  address 
to  it  :  atwTra,  Tre^ju&KTo.  There  is  undoubtedly  more  implied  in  this 
than  a  mere  oratorical  personification.  It  indicates  a  view  of  nature, 
as  of  something  living,  which  is  affected  by  divine,  as  well  as  by 
hostile,  influences.  Our  Lord,  by  viewing  the  commotions  of  nature 
as  the  echo  of  the  general  interruption  of  harmony,  refers  them  to 
their  original  source.  (On  hriri^av,  expressing  a  command  of  divine 
power,  see  note  on  Matth.  viii.  29.  —  <J>t|udw,  to  close  the  mouth,  1  Tim. 
v.  18  ;  fanovoBai,  to  be  dumb,  silent,  Kondfa  •=  7}<nr£o£«,  used  of  the 
wind,  Matth.  xiv.  32  ;  Mark  vi.  51.) 

Ver.  27.  —  The  more  colossal  and  externally  striking  the  effects 
of  the  Saviour's  power  are,  the  more  they  impress  the  natural  man. 
In  themselves  the  hidden  spiritual  effects  are  infinitely  mightier  and 
more  exalted  ;  they  strike  at  the  root  of  sin,  while  the  former  touch 
only  its  remote  and  secondary  effects. 


§  10.  CURE  or  THE  GADARENE  DEMONIAC. 

(Matth.  viii.  28-34 ;  Mark  v.  1-20 ;  Luke  viiL  26-39.) 

We  avail  ourselves  of  this  most  important  and  difficult  of  the 
miraculous  cures — the  first,  according  to  Matthew's  arrangement, 
among  the  narratives  of  the  treatment  of  what  are  called  6ai[iovi&ne- 
voi,  demoniacs — to  develop  in  a  connected  way,  agreeably  to  the  in- 
timations contained  in  the  Scriptures,  the  view  which  we  entertain 
on  the  condition  of  such  persons,  and  on  the  several  phenomena 
which  the  Scriptures  mention  in  connexion  with  them.  The  entire 
Scriptures  are  undeniably  pervaded  by  the  idea,f  that  what  is  holy 

*  Properly,  shaking,  violent  agitation,  then  specially,  earthquake. — [K. 

f  The  vigorous  opposition  offered  to  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  the  devil  and  bad 

angels,  may,  in  part,  arise  from  pure  motives — viz.,  the  desire  to  prevent  the  great  abuses 

which  have  been  made  of  the  doctrine;  but,  in  part,  are  prompted  by  those  of  a  totally 

•different  kind — viz.,  a  laxity  of  morals,  and  an  unwillingness  to  acknowledge  to  themselves, 

in  all  its  deformity,  the  nature  of  that  evil  which  men  detect  plainly  enough  in  them- 


360  MATTHEW  VIII.  28. 

and  what  is  unholy  in  mankind,  has  not  its  root  in  themselves,  but 
in  a  higher  region  of  existence,  whence  arise  those  influences  of  good 
and  evil,  which  may  be  receeived  or  rejected  on  the  part  of  men,  ac- 
cording  to  the  position  and  the  faithfulness  of  the  individual.  With 
a  comprehensive  glance,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  conceives  the  good 
as  well  as  the  evil  in  the  universe  as  a  connected  whole — only  with 
this  difference,  that  the  good,  being  the  divine  itself,  always  appears 
likewise  as  the  absolute;  the  unholy,  on  the  contrary,  is  indeed  re- 
presented as  a  real  interruption  of  harmony,  but  still  only  as  some- 
thing dependent  on  the  will  of  the  creature.  The  Scriptures  know 
of  no  second  principle,  and  the  church  has  invariably  condemned 
the  doctrine  of  Manicheism  as  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  God. 
By  removing  the  source  of  evil  out  of  human  nature,  redemption  is 
recognized  as  possible.  For  it  is  only  the  germ  of  good  in  man, 
viewed  in  its  state  of  bondage  under  a  hostile  power,  that  can  be 

selves.  They  ought  to  separate  the  abuses  from  the  thing  itself,  and  then  it  would  be 
seen  how,  in  this  information  respecting  the  relations  of  the  world  of  spirits  also,  the  Scrip- 
tures are  perfectly  adapted  to  the  wants  of  men.  Many  a  soul  despairs  in  the  conflict 
with  evil  thoughts,  or  yields  itself  up  to  them,  which  might  be  well  able  to  overcome 
them,  were  it  taught  to  distinguish  itself  from  the  Evil  One,  and  to  ascribe  the  fiery  darta 
by  which  it  is  assailed,  to  the  wicked  being  who  directs  them  against  it.  (Ephes.  v.  16.) 
If  we  carefully  banish  the  devil  and  his  angels,  we  retain  a 'world  full  of  devilish  men,  and 
for  ourselves  a  heart  full  of  devilish  thoughts,  as  Gb'the  appositely  remarks :  "  They  got 
rid  of  the  wicked  one,  but  the  wicked  ones  remain;"  for  evil  itself,  with  its  frightful  mani- 
festations, cannot  possibly  be  removed ;  it  stands  engraved  in  history  with  indelible  lines. 
Hence  the  doctrine,  that  the  source  of  evil  is  in  a  higher  region  of  life,  is  a  blessing  to 
mankind;  it  contains  the  key  to  the  doctrine  of  redemption.  On  this  account  also,  it  is 
BO  deeply  based  in  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  that  it  will  never  be  possible  to  overthrow 
it  in  the  church,  except,  indeed,  the  church  should  ever  so  far  forget  itself  as  to  admit 
accommodation  to  evident  errors  into  the  idea  of  its  Saviour,  which  would  be  equivalent 
to  self-destruction.  But,  as  truth  in  general  will  remain  unconquered,  so  will  also  the 
truth  respecting  evil,  which  consists  precisely  in  our  knowing  that  it  exists,  and  how  it 
exists.  For  it  is  the  real  victory  of  evil  not  to  be  known.  But  with  regard  to  the  itse  to 
be  made  of  the  doctrine,  great  care  is  certainly  commendable  in  this  respect,  as  all  deeply 
impressive  ideas,  like  edge  tools,  must  be  applied  prudently.  The  use  made  of  the  doc- 
trine in  Scripture  supplies  most  excellent  hints  on  this  subject.  First,  we  find  that,  in 
the  earlier  periods  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  doctrine  appears  only  in  obscure  intimations; 
it  is  not  till  the  times  of  the  captivity,  when  the  worship  of  the  true  God  was  firmly  es- 
tablished among  the  people,  that  the  germs  were  further  unfolded.  In  this  fact,  we  have 
a  plain  hint  not  to  propound  the  doctrine  either  before  children,  or  before  minds  so  im- 
mature that  they  may  be  regarded  as  childish ;  before  such,  it  is  better,  after  the  example 
of  the  Old  Testament,  to  refer  the  manifestations  of  evil  to  the  permission  of  God,  with- 
out entering  more  minutely  on  the  subject.  The  Saviour  teaches  concerning  the  devil 
only  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples.  Next,  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  and 
its  agency  ought  never  to  be  brought  forward  in  any  other  way  than  in  connexion  with 
the  doctrine  of  redemption.  The  consciousness  of  grace  which  overcomes  all,  is  the 
surest  means  to  prevent  all  misconception  of  the  doctrine.  Lastly,  the  doctrine,  in  gene- 
ral, is  not  so  much  included  among  the  subjects  of  the  formal  KTJpvy/na  r?/r  d^rjdeiaf,  just 
as  it  does  not  appear  so  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith ;  it  is  more 
particularly  important  in  the  private  cure  of  souls.  In  the  manifold  enigmas  of  self-ex- 
amination, we  shall  find  that  this  doctrine  has  not  only  a  deep  psychological  root,  bufc 
that  a  beneficial  effect  may  be  expected  from  its  being  wisely  employed. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  28.  361 

redeemed  ;  but  the  hostile  power,  as  well  as  man  himself,  if  he  has 
consciously  resigned  himself  to  it  altogether,  and  is,  therefore,  ab- 
sorbed in  it,  is  not  an  object  of  redeeming  power.  The  kingdom  of 
evil,  then,  regarded  in  its  individuality,  and  conceived  as  the  op- 
posite (though  only  relatively)  of  the  kingdom  of  good,  is  called  in 
the  Scriptures,  the  devil  and  his  angels  (didfiokog  KOI  ayyeAot  avrov) 
(Matth.  xxv.  41  ;  Kev.  xii.  9)  ;  also,  the  kingdom  of  Satan  (fiaoiteia 
rov  oaravd)  (Matth.  xii.  26.)  The  terms,  devil  (6id(3o^og)  and  Satan 
(aaravas )  (  =  i&o  =  Ka-n/ywp  r&v  adeA^wv,  accuser  of  the  brethren, 
Kev.  xii.  10),  are  used  only  in  the  singular  for  the  central  power  of 
evil,  who  is  conceived  as  carrying  in  himself  potentially  the  power 
of  his  kingdom.  In  one  passage  (Matth.  xii.  26),  it  is  true,  Satan 
seems  to  be  used  as  equivalent  to  dcupoviov ;  but  even  there,  it  is 
only  in  appearance.  The  subordinate  spirits,  corresponding  to  the 
angels  of  God,  are  called  dainovia,  demons,  less  frequently,  daifwveg , 
(Matth.  viii.  31  ;  Mark  v.  12 ;  Luke  viii.  29)  ;  frequently  un- 
clean spirits  (-rrvevfuiTa  dudOap-a) ;  and  (in  Ephes.  vi.  12),  TrvevfiariKa 
rrj^  -rrovr/pia^,  spiritual  (essences  of")  wickedness.  The  signification  of 
the  word  dai^v  =  dar^^v,  is,  among  ancient  writers,  more  comprehen- 
sive; it  denotes  "one  who  is  well  informed,  knows  ;"*  and  because 
knowledge  manifests  itself  as  the  essence  of  the  spirit,  it  denotes 
spiritual  exis^nces  in  general.  (The  character  of  the  knowledge 
is  more  accurately  specified  by  adjuncts,  as  dyadodai/j-uv,  KaKodaipuv). 
In  the  same  way  as  good  is  viewed  in  its  different  modifications  in 
the  angels  of  light,  evil  is  individualized  in  the  angels  of  darkness  in 
its  modifications.  (On  the  classes  among  the  demons,  see  note  on 
Ephes.  vi.  12.)  The  germs  of  this  mode  of  viewing  the  subject  are 
found  in  the  very  earliest  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  we 
may  imagine  a  development  of  these  germs  in  the  popular  mind  by 
continued  enlightenment  through  the  spirit  of  truth,  without  call- 
ing to  our  aid  the  foreign  influence,  which  some  have  thought  to 
have  been  exercised  over  the  Jews  during  the  Babylonish  captivity,  f 

*  More  probably  from  8alu,  divide,  attot. — [K. 

f  This  view,  which  has  become  so  current,  is  involved  in  considerable  historical  diffi- 
culties. For  since  those  regions,  to  which  Nebuchadnezzar  removed  the  Jews,  were  un- 
der the  dominion  of  the  Chaldeans,  by  whose  popular  worship  such  an  effect  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  been  wrought  upon  the  Jews,  since  they  had  no  doctrine  of  evil  spirits 
(Hunter's  conjecture  in  his  "  Religion  der  Babylonier,"  S.  87,  ff.,  that  there  was  some  instruc- 
tion on  the  subject  of  demons  in  the  Chaldean  esoteric  doctrines,  is  mere  hypothesis) ;  the 
question  arises — Whether  the  system  of  the  Zendavesta,  to  the  influence  of  which  it  is 
ascribed  that  the  Jews  became  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  demons  during  the  cap- 
tivity, ever  was  prevalent  in  the  Chaldee  kingdom?  There  were  Magi  in  Babylon,  it 
is  true,  even  before  the  capture  of  that  city  by  Cyrus  (see  Bertholdfs  third  Excursus  to  his 
commentary  on  Daniel) ;  but  whether  these  Magi  were  worshippers  of  Ormuzd.  and  ac- 
quainted with  Ahriman,  is  very  doubtful,  because  (see  Gesenius'  second  appendix  to  his 
.commentary  on  Isaiah)  none  of  the  Chaldee  names  of  gods  have  the  least  similarity  to  the 
Persian.  But  if  the  religion  of  the  Zendavesta  had  been  esoteric  only  in  the  Chaldee  em- 


362  MATTHEW  VIII.  28. 

But  then  if  we  start  from  the  magnificent  conception  of  the  unity 
of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  the  question  occurs — What  peculiar 
form  of  the  influence  of  the  powers  of  darkness  do  the  Scriptures  de- 
note by  the  name  da^ovt^o/zevot,  demoniacs  ?  For  although  they  like- 
wise connect  moral  evil  in  mankind  with  the  influence  of  the 
devil  (e.  g.,  John  says  of  Judas  Iscariot :  Satan  entered  into  him, 
chap.  xiii.  27),  yet  the  representatives  of  evil  among  mankind  (false 
prophets  and  antichrists)  are  never  called  demoniacs.  In  the  case 
of  the  latter,  on  the  contrary,  we  always  perceive  appearances  of 
sickness,  generally  convulsions  of  an  epileptic  nature,  and  a  derange- 
ment or  loss  of  personal  consciousness.  But  still  this  state  of  sick- 
ness does  not  appear  as  the  characteristic  of  demoniacs  ;  for  it  is 
evident  that  the  same  maladies  may,  in  one  case  be  of  demoniacal 
origin,  in  another,  not ;  for  instance  one  who  is  dumb  inconsequence 
of  organic  defect,  perhaps  an  injury  to  the  tongue,  would  never  be 
called  a  demoniac,  though  we  read  in  Luke  xi.  14  of  a  demoniac  who 
was  dumb.  Many  demoniacs  shew  themselves  to  be  maniacs  (e.  g., 
the  Gadarene,  whose  history  we  are  discussing)  ;  but  it  does  not, 
therefore,  follow  that  every  madman,  even  such  as  were  disordered 
by  organic  injuries  of  the  brain,  was  considered  by  the  Jews  a  demo- 
niac.* All  the  descriptions  of  demoniacs  indicate  a  strange  mix- 
ture of  psychical  and  physical  phenomena.  In  the  first  place,  the 
condition  of  the  demoniacs  appears  always  to  suppose  a  cer- 
tain degree  of  moral  delinquency ;  yet  so,  that  their  sin  mani- 
fests itself,  not  so  much  as  wickedness,  properly  speaking,  as  pre- 
dominant sensuality  (probably  lasciviousness  in  particular),  which 
was  indulged  in  opposition  to  their  better  self.  Thus  in  such 

pire,  then,  again,  it  is  not  easily  conceivable  how  the  poor  Jewish  exiles  should  have  be- 
come acquainted  with  it,  and  that  so  far  as  to  have  received  thence  new  doctrines  into 
the  circle  of  their  ideas.  The  whole  subject  needs,  as  before  observed,  a  more  thorough 
historical  investigation.  [The  Bible  doctrine  of  fallen  angels  is  the  reverse  of  the  dualistic 
doctrine  of  the  Zendavesta.  ]  But  that  idea  is  not  less  to  be  rejected,  that  the  belief  of  the  ex- 
istence of  evil  spirits  is  a  notion  belonging  to  the  infancy  of  mankind.  The  history  of  the 
development  of  demonology  in  the  Scriptures,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  case,  proves  the 
contrary.  The  purer,  the  deeper,  and  the  truer  the  conception  of  the  divine,  as  the  good, 
the  more  thoroughly  does  man  know  evil  in  its  nature,  and  comprehend  it  in  its  develop- 
ment. The  Scriptures  represent  the  false  prophets  and  false  Christs  as  its  most  perfect 
forms,  and  place  them  at  the  end  of  the  world's  course.  The  fact  that  our  most  modern 
systematic  theology,  even  since  its  restoration  after  its  self-destruction,  has  been  still  so 
little  able  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  (as  is  seen  in  Schleicrmacher's 
System,  for  instance),  proves,  that  the  Christian  consciousness  has  not  allowed  itself  to  be 
thoroughly  penetrated  with  the  light  of  Christian  principle. 

*  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  6,  3)  pronounces  the  demons  to  be  the  souls  of  wicked  men,  and, 
on  the  same  supposition,  Justin  Martyr  explains  the  nature  of  the  demoniacs.  (Apol.  I. 
c.  16,  p.  14,  edit.  Braun.)  This  view  must,  however,  be  regarded  merely  as  the  private 
opinion  of  a  few,  and  is  not  to  be  taken  as  the  prevailing  popular  sentiment.  Josephus 
(Ant.  viii.  2,  3)  narrates  the  cure  of  a  demoniac.  Philostratus  (iv.  20,  25)  records  of  Ap- 
pollonius  Tyaneus  also  that  he  exorcised  evil  spirits.  Compare  Baur's  "Leben  des 
AppoUonius,"  S.  144. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  28.  368 

persons,  the  noble,  deep-seated  germ  of  life  might  be  preserved, 
and  out  of  it  the  desire  for  deliverance  might  be  developed,  if 
the  consciousness  of  the  frightful  condition  of  knowing  them- 
selves to  be  bound  under  the  power  of  sin  was  awakened  within 
them.  Next,  there  appears,  as  a  characteristic  of  demoniacs,  a 
weakening  of  the  bodily  organization,  particularly  the  nervous  sys- 
tem, occasioned  by  the  sin  in  which  they  indulged  ;  and  from  the 
very  intimate  connexion  of  the  nervous  life  with  all  mental  activity, 
the  enfeebling  of  the  former  must  very  easily  produce  derangement 
in  the  whole  internal  life.  This  derangement  appears  the  more  strik- 
ing in  such  unfortunate  beings,  the  more  excitable  their  conscience 
seems  to  have  been  ;  testifying  to  them  that  their  misery  was  the 
result  of  their  own  fault,  without  their  being  in  a  condition,  by  their 
own  power,  to  extricate  themselves  from  the  fetters  of  sin  and  the 
kingdom  of  darkness,  to  the  influence  of  which  they  had  resigned 
themselves.  On  the  other  hand,  one  who,  in  his  inmost  soul,  had 
resigned  himself  to  sin,  yet  rather  intellectual  than  sensual,  might 
be  a  -nwT/pof,  wicked,  but  not  a  dcu^ovi^onevog,  demoniac.  For  hi 
such  persons  there  is  still  a  certain  unity  of  nature,  which  may  in 
the  end  become  despair  (as  in  the  case  of  Judas),  but  not  madness, 
which  presupposes  a  violent  inward  conflict  between  the  better  self 
and  the  power  of  darkness,  by  which  it  feels  itself  enthralled.  It 
coincides  with  our  view,  j£rs£,  that  in  all  the  descriptions  of  demo- 
niacs we  find  mention  made  of  physical  sufferings.  Convulsions, 
epilepsy,  raving,  and  lunacy  (according  to  Matth.  xvii,  14,  ff.),  are 
particularly  noticed — the  kind  of  maladies  which  agree  well  with 
our  hypothesis.  The  agreement  appears  to  be  less,  where  demoniacs 
are  called  dumb  or  deaf ;  but  even  such  forms  of  physical  suffering 
may  be  easily  brought  to  harmonize  with  our  general  view,  if  only, 
as  just  observed,  we  do  not  conceive  of  organic  destruction  of  hear- 
ing and  speech  in  the  case  of  demoniacal  deafness  and  dumbness, 
but  rather  nervous  paralysis,  ascribed  by  the  troubled  conscience  of 
the  sufferers  to  the  influence  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  which 
they  were  conscious  they  had  permitted  to  enter  their  souls.  Hence 
the  common  opinion,  which  pronounces  the  demoniacs  to  be  sick 
people,  is  partially  true  ;  but  only  partially,  as  it  confines  itself  to 
the  outward  effects,  while  the  representation  of  Scripture  regards 
the  phenomena  in  their  moral  origin  [as  the  influence  of  fallen 
angels  on  the  nervous  system.]  Next,  it  is  equally  in  accordance 
with  our  view,  that  a  desire  for  deliverance,  a  hope  of  being  cured, 
is  expressed  by  all  the  demoniacs.  And  though  this  longing  is,  as 
it  were,  but  a  spark  of  hope  and  faith,  which  yet  glows  within ; 
still  even  this  implies  a  susceptibility  to  the  powers  of  the  higher 
life  which  the  Saviour  presented  to  them.  Accordingly,  the  demo- 
niacs do  not  appear  by  any  means  as  the  most  wicked,  but  only  as 


364  MATTHEW  VIII.  28. 

very  miserable  men.  The  decidedly  wicked  man,  who  has  admitted 
the  hostile  influence,  undisturbed  and  unopposed,  into  the  inmost 
recesses  of  his  heart,  cannot  be  healed.  Faith — susceptibility  to  a 
higher  principle  of  life — is  wanting  in  the  most  secret  depths  of  the 
soul.  In  the  demoniacs,  the  contest  against  evil  presents  apparently 
a  more  hideous  form  ;  but  that  there  still  remains  a  contest  against 
it,  speaks  for  the  existence  of  a  germ  of  noble  life  ;  so  that  in  the  case 
even  of  the  demoniacs,  faith  is  the  necessary  condition  of  their  being 
healed.  But  again,  our  view  is  in  accordance  with  the  circum- 
stance, that,  in  the  descriptions  of  the  demoniacs,  we  often  find  a 
subjection  of  the  nervous  system,  and  with  this,  of  the  voluntary  bodily 
functions,  especially  language,  to  the  will  of  the  demons.  They 
speak  their  character,  or  rather  the  demon  speaks  through  them,  but 
always  so  that  there  reappears  at  moments  the  consciousness  of 
their  individuality.  This  state  is  quite  parallel  with  the  trance 
(eKoraai^),  or  being  in  the  spirit  (lv  -rrvevfia-i  elvai),  and  speaking 
with  tongues  (ykuaoaic;  XaXelv')  ;  that  is,  the  effect  produced  in  these 
latter  states  by  the  holy  element  of  the  spirit  (rrvev^a),  or  light 
see  1  Cor.  xiv.,  where  the  suppression  of  the  consciousness 
by  the  overpowering  holy  force  manifestly  appears — is,  in  the 
former  case,  produced  by  the  unholy  element  of  darkness  (a/coro^). 
We  are  not,  therefore,  by  any  means,  to  conceive  of  the  state  of 
the  demoniac,  as  if  two  or  more  persons  were  contained  in  the  in- 
dividual ;  but  the  suffering  person  appears  with  his  own  human  con- 
sciousness suppressed,  and  a  controlling  foreign  influence  on  his  nerv- 
ous life  ;  but  as  there  are  alternating  seasons  in  which  the  hostile 
power  is  ascendant,  and  in  which  it  retreats,  so,  after  a  paroxysm, 
the  human  self  again  shews  itself  in  lucid  intervals,  with  a  full  sense 
of  the  wretchedness  of  such  a  bondage.  And,  lastly,  we  discover 
also  in  the  demoniacs  an  enhanced  faculty  of  foreseeing,  a  kind  of 
somnambulic  clairvoyance,  by  which,  in  particular,  they  recognize  the 
important  relation  sustained  by  the  Saviour  to  the  entire  realm  of 
spirits.  This  very  circumstance  agrees  perfectly  with  the  hypothe- 
sis, that  nervous  affections  form  the  basis  of  such  states,  so  far  as 
they  are  corporeal ;  and  how  easily  unnaturally  increased  nervous 
action  is  united  with  the  gift  of  clairvoyance,  is  sufficiently  familiar 
from  the  history  of  animal  magnetism.  It  is  thus  that  the  contra- 
dictory language  of  the  demoniacs  is  to  be  explained  ;  at  one  time 
they  manifest  a  deep  insight  into  the  truth  ;  at  another,  rude  popu- 
lar notions  are  mixed  up  in  their  words,  so  that  the  whole  of  their 
conversation  has  the  fearfully  vivid  character  of  the  erring  and  con- 
fused talk  of  madmen,  who  not  unfrequently  give  utterance  to  strik- 
ing thoughts,  but  so  connect  them  with  other  elements,  that  the 
splendour  of  the  thought  is  only  a  more  melancholy  testimony  to  the 
greatness  of  the  derangement  in  the  seat  of  life  whence  it  issued. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  28.  365 

On  these  grounds,  we  have  still  to  explain  why  demoniacs  are  no 
longer  to  be  found.*  First,  it  is  certainly  undeniable,  that  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel  has  had  a  beneficial  influence  on  mankind  even 
in  this  respect,  and  that  thus  various  manifestations  of  evil  (particu- 
larly in  its  rude  forms)  have  been  mitigated.  It  is  a  mistake  when 
some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain,  on  the  authority  of  1  John 
iii.  8,  that  the  devil  has  no  more  opportunity  to  exert  his  influence 
in  the  church  of  Christ  (least  of  all  can  the  passage  referred  to  sup- 
ply any  proof  of  that  opinion).  It  might  be  allowed  of  the  ideal, 
invisible  church — as  the  community  of  believers  ;  but  the  external 
church  evidently  forms  a  mixed  communion,  in  which  the  power  of 
Christ's  redeeming  work  is,  indeed,  in  a  state  of  advancing  develop- 
ment, but  has  not  yet,  by  any  means,  sanctified  the  whole  ;  for 
which  reason,  the  influences  emanating  from  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness must  not  be  conceived  as  destroyed,  but  only  as  modified. 
Next,  the  fact  in  question  may  be  accounted  for  from  this,  that  the 
knowledge  of  evil  spirits  and  of  their  influence  is  not  now  so  preva- 
lent. In  many  maniacs  or  epileptic  persons  there  may  be  a  state 
very  similar  to  that  of  the  demoniacs,  (?),  only  the  sufferer  himself 
(as  medical  men  commonly  do)  looks  upon  his  state  in  a  different 
light.f  But  it  is  evident  that  the  circumstance  of  the  unhappy 
being's  knowing  or  not  knowing  of  his  state,  is  something  purely  ac- 
cidental. In  this  is  but  reflected  the  character  of  the  tune,  just  as 

*  I  assume  here,  according  to  the  prevalent  opinion,  that  such  is  the  fact,  and  that  no 
demoniacs  are  now  to  be  met  with.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that  eminent  medical 
men  are  of  a  different  opinion — e.  g,  Esquirol  in  Paris  (compare  the  "  Magazin  fiir  auslan- 
dische  Heilkunde,  von  Gerson  und  Julius."  Sept.  1828,8.317).  Kernels  views  on  the 
subject  are  well  known.  The  missionary  Rhenius  gives  an  account  of  a  remarkable  de- 
moniac in  the  East  Indies,  in  the  year  1817.  (In  Meyer's  "Blatter  fiir  hohere  Wahrheit," 
B.  1,  S.  199,  ff.)  "Were  the  apostles  to  visit  our  madhouses,  it  is  questionable  how  they 
would  designate  many  of  the  sufferers  in  them. 

•j-  On  the  same  grounds  it  is  accounted  for,  that  there  is  no  mention  made  of  demo- 
niacs in  the  Old  Testament.  The  doctrine  of  demoniacs  and  their  influence  had  but  little 
currency  among  the  people  before  the  captivity ;  even  if  therefore,  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness did  produce  similar  manifestations  (as  at  the  present  day),  yet  they  were  not  recog- 
nized as  such.  After  the  captivity,  forms  quite  analogous  to  those  of  the  New- Testament 
may  have  existed ;  but  the  prophetic  writings  of  that  period  contain  little  historical  mat- 
ter, and  hence  it  is  easily  explained  how  we  meet  with  no  references  to  the  subject  in 
them.  At  the  time  when  the  Apocryphal  books  were  written,  spiritual  life  in  general 
was  at  a  low  ebb  among  the  Israel itish  people;  and  for  that  very  reason  the  opposing 
principles  were  but  little  developed.  For  that  such  frequent  manifestations  of  the  hideous 
power  of  darkness  appear  in  the  New  Testament  side  by  side  with  the  nobler  manifesta- 
tions of  the  divine,  is,  doubtless,  to  be  accounted  for  from  the  excited  character  of  the 
whole  period,  which  caused  all  the  opposing  principles  to  come  out  more  distinctly.  But 
with  respect  to  the  cause  of  the  Evangelist  John's  silence  about  demoniacs,  that  cause 
is  to  be  sought  only  in  his  relation  to  the  synoptic  Evangelists ;  the  latter  had  narrated  a 
sufficient  number  of  the  cures  of  demoniacs;  and  for  that  reason  John  (to  whom,  in  gen- 
eral, the  actions  of  Jesus  serve  only  as  points  of  connexion  for  the  discourses  to  be  com- 
municated) passed  them  over  in  silence.  At  least  the  view  which  John  entertained  of 
the  devil  (according  to  viii.  44 ;  xiii.  27)  was  not,  in  any  respect,  different. 


366  MATTHEW  VIII.  28. 

the  name  is  which  the  madman  applies  to  his  demon.  At  most, 
therefore,  we  can  only  say,  that  the  cases  have  become  much  more 
rare,  and  this  shews  how  the  restorative  power  of  the  Saviour  will, 
at  some  future  period,  harmonize  all  discords  in  the  life  of  man, 
both  of  his  body  and  of  his  soul.  [It  seems,  however,  more  probable 
that  that  fearful  letting  loose  of  demoniacal  agency  ran  parallel  with 
the  special  revelation  of  Deity  in  the  incarnation,  and  that  there- 
fore they  were  only  then  permitted  by  heaven.] 

If,  after  these  remarks,  we  turn  to  the  history  of  the  Gadarenc 
demoniac  before  us,  which  has,  moreover,  special  diffictilties,  we 
have  to  observe,  in  general,  that  Matthew  speaks  of  two  sufferers, 
while  the  other  two  Evangelists  know  of  only  one.  A  similar  case 
of  the  number  being  doubled  occurs  in  Matth.  xx.  30,  where  he 
speaks  of  two  blind  men,  though  Mark  (x.  46)  and  Luke  (xviii.  35) 
make  mention  of  one  only.  This  difference  belongs  to  the  class 
discussed  in  the  Introduction  (§  8),  which  we  must  take  to  be  such 
as  they  manifestly  are — as  discrepancies — without  seeking  for  ex- 
planations ;  as,  for  instance,  that  one  carried  on  the  conversation, 
and  is,  therefore,  alone  mentioned,  and  so  forth.  In  this  case  it  is 
extremely  improbable  that  there  should  have  been  two  persons 
afflicted  in  this  manner.  Probably  Matthew  has  combined  this  oc- 
currence with  a  kindred  one,  which  might  happen  all  the  more 
easily,  as  he  uniformly  presents  the  frame-work  of  his  narrative  only 
in  general  outline.  Further,  there  is  an  uncertainty  about  the 
spelling  of  the  name  of  the  place,  after  which  the  demoniac,  of 
whom  our  narrative  speaks,  was  called.  In  all  the  three  Gospels 
there  are  the  various  readings,  Tepyearjv&v,  Tadaprjv&v,  TepaoTjv&v, 
from  which  we  may  conclude,  that  they  did  not  originally  agree  in 
the  reading.  The  difference  of  the  reading  arose  from  the  effort  to 
establish  uniformity.  It  must  indeed  be  allowed,  that  the  possibility 
of  such  a  variation  in  the  name  of  the  place  results  from  the  cha- 
racter of  the  locality  itself.  In  Decapolis  (see  note  on  Matth.  iv. 
25),  where  according  to  Mark  v.  20,  the  occurrence  took  place,  lay 
the  well-known  town  of  Gadara,  the  capital  of  Perea,  sixty  stadia 
distant  from  Tiberias,  and  renowned  for  its  warm  baths.  Farther 
to  the  north  lay  Gerasa,  a  place  on  the  eastern  boundary  of  Perea  ; 
at  some  distance  from  the  sea  indeed,  but  yet  so  that  the  territory 
of  the  town  extended  down  to  it ;  and  hence  the  "  countries" 
(x&pat)  of  the  two  towns  might  easily  be  confounded.  (On  the  two 
places,  see  Winer's  "  Keallexicon,"  s.  v.)  Origen  (Opp.  vol.  iv.,  p. 
140)  does  indeed  report,  that  in  his  day  the  precipice  was  shewn 
down  which  the  swine  were  said  to  have  cast  themselves,  and  calls 
the  neighbouring  town  Gergesa.*  But  the  entire  account  speaks 

*  Origen  ppeaks  of  the  reading  Tepaotjvuv  as  the  common  one  in  the  Codd.  of  his 
day.     Ho  says,  that  the  reading  TadapT/vuv  is  found  in  only  a  few  copies,  and  decides  in 


MATTHEW  VIII.  28.  367 

only  of  a  tradition,  and,  hence  the  existence  of  a  town  of  that  name 
is  rendered  doubtful,  since  there  are  no  other  reliable  traces  of  its 
existence  at  the  time  of  Jesus.  (On  the  ancient  Gergesa,  see  Deut. 
vii.  1 ;  Joshua  xxiv.  11  ;  Joseph.  Ant.  I.  6,  2.)  In  the  text  of 
Mark  and  Luke,  the  reading  Tadaprjvuv  is  undoubtedly  the  correct 
one.  In  Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  that  reading  is  certainly  only 
taken  from  the  other  two  Evangelists.  But  whether  Tepyeorjv&v  or 
TEpaarjvtiv  is  preferable  in  Matthew,  it  would  be  difficult  to  decide. 
In  the  edition  of  Cfriesbach-Schulz,  the  former  reading  is  adopted 
on  the  authority  of  the  Codd. ;  but  yet  it  may  be  questionable, 
whether  this  reading  was  not  introduced  into  the  Codd.  simply  on 
the  authority  of  Origen,  and  whether  the  original  reading  in  Mat- 
thew was  not  Tepaorjv&v.  Fritzsche  is  also  against  Tepyeorjv&v,  but 
decides  in  favour  of  Tadaprjv&v,  in  which  case  the  original  reading 
must  have  been  the  same  in  all  the  three  Gospels,  which  from  the 
many  variations  in  the  name,  is  improbable. 

Ver.  28. — The  description  of  the  demoniac,  in  the  present  nar- 
rative, shews  him  clearly  to  be  a  maniac.  The  madness  seized  the 
unhappy  man  convulsively  at  separate  moments  ;  then,  after  such 
paroxysms,  a  period  of  quiet  supervened.  Mark  depicts  the  poor 
man's  state  most  vividly  in  his  description  (v.  3-5.)  He  shewed 
tremendous  muscular  power,  as  is  usual  in  cases  of  mania.  In  order 
to  restrain  him  they  had  chained  him  (-rredrj  =  irepioKeXig,  fetter  for 
the  foot,  is  a  species  of  the  general  term  akvmg,  chain);  but  he 
broke  the  bonds,  and  would  not  even  endure  clothes  on  his  body. 
The  hostile  power,  to  which  he  had  allowed  an  entrance  into  his 
soul,  drove  him  to  solitary  places,  where  he  lived  in  the  tombs,  and 
his  appearance  terrified  the  passers-by.  We  are  to  imagine  the 
pv^ftara,  tombs,  to  have  been  at  a  distance  Yrom  the  town,  as  well  as 
hewn  in  the  rocks  ;  for  which  reason  Mark  (v.  5)  connects  iv  TOI$ 
fivrj^aoi  KOI  iv  rolg  opeaiv,  in  the  tombs  and  the  mountains.  But,  from 
time  to  time,  his  better  nature  awoke  within,  and  gave  vent  to  it- 
self in  a  doleful  cry  of  anguish,  and  in  self-inflicted  torments,  to 
which  the  consciousness  of  guilt  drove  him  (xpd^v  not  Ka-aKo-nruv 
iavrbv  M6oi$,  Mark  v.  5.)  The  narratives  of  Mark  and  Luke  only, 
furnish  a  vivid  picture  of  Jesus'  meeting  with  this  unhappy  man, 
and  the  way  in  which  the  Saviour  dealt  with  him.  Matthew  (ver. 
29)  begins  at  once  with  the  exclamation  :  ri  fylv  KOI  ooi,  What  hast 
thou  to  do  with  us  ?  which  renders  the  picture  of  the  action  obscure. 
According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  there  was  first  a  salutary  emotion 
which  at  the  sight  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  came  over  the  poor  man, 
who  had  felt  within  himself  the  fierce  raging  of  the  powers  of  evil. 

favour  of  Tsp-yeaTjvtiv,  on  the  ground  of  the  traditional  report.  The  passage  about  Ger- 
gesa is  as  follows  : — Tep-yeaa  d(j>'  fa  oi  Tepysat/voi,  jro/Uf  uf>xaiai  nept  T^v  v**v  xaAovfievj/v 
Tt/3eptat5of  "kifj,vi]v,  a^>'  ov  dsinwrai  Toiif  %oipavf  viro  TUV  Sa.tp.ovuv  KarafiefiArjoOai. 


368  MATTHEW  VIII.  28,  29. 

He  hastened  up  to  Jesus,  and  fell  at  his  feet — evidencing,  in  this 
act  of  homage,  the  obscure  confession,  that  he  expected  help  from 
him.  We  should,  indeed,  utterly  disarrange  the  connexion  if  we 
were  to  take  the  words  "crying  with  a  loud  voice"  (Kpd&g  fieydky 
Quvig),  which  Mark  and  Luke  connect  with  the  TrpoaeKuvijae,  wor- 
shipped, as  contemporaneous  with  it.  Then  the  worshipping  could 
only  be  an  action  proceeding  from  the  dominion"  of  demoniacal 
power,  and  the  object  of  the  humble  petition  could  not  have  been 
to  be  healed,  but  ^  pe  p<wavi<jij<;*  do  not  torment  me.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent, that  in  that  case  the  demoniac  would  not  have  hastened 
to  meet  Jesus ;  but  would  have  fled  from  him.  And,  moreover,  this 
view  does  not  accord  with  Mark  v.  8 :  Iteye  yap  K.  T.  A.  (Luke  viii.  29 
has  Trapijyyeihe  yap  K.  T.  A.)  The  yap  is  evidently  intended  to  mark  the 
reason  of  the  exclamation  :  ri  i[iol  nal  ooi ;  and  the  aorist  is,  therefore, 
to  be  construed  as  a  pluperfect.  See  Winer's  Grammar,  §  41,  5. 

Ver.  29. — The  whole  then  is  conceivable  in  the  following  form  : 
With  a  presentiment  of  help,  the  unhappy  man,  when  he  came 
within  view  of  the  Saviour,  hastened  towards  him,  and  fell  at  his 
feet ;  Jesus  commanded  the  unclean  spirit  to  depart  from  him,  and 
in  an  instant  his  condition  was  reversed.  A  violent  paroxysm  seized 
him,  and,  under  its  influence,  he  spake,  with  a  suppression  of  the 
human  consciousness,  in  the  character  of  the  demoniacal  power,  and 
cried,  "  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ?"  (ri  luol  teal  <rot),  although  he 
had  just  before  sought  the  Lord  with  purely  human  feelings.  (The 
common  term  for  the  command  to  the  demons  to  come  out,  is 
bnTipav  =  -I?A,  in  which  the  idea  of  severe  reproof  is  implied.)  This 
change  in  the  temper  of  the  demoniac  in  connexion  with  the  fact, 
that  his  healing  was  not  contemporaneous  with  the  command  of 
Jesus  to  the  spirit,  is  a  very  important  circumstance  for  -the  com- 
prehension of  this  narrative,  and  of  the  state  of  the  demoniacs  in 
general.  According  to  our  general  view  detailed  above,  it  is  most 
simple  to  conceive  of  the  matter  thus.  By  the  contraction  of  deep 
guilt,  and  long  continuance  in  the  practice  of  sin,  the  situation  of 
this  pitiable  being  had,  probably,  become  so  dangerous,  that  a  violent 
penetration  of  the  holy  power  of  Jesus  into  him  might,  indeed, 
have  availed  to  repulse  the  power  of  darkness,  but  would,  perhaps, 
have  destroyed  the  bodily  organization  of  the  demoniac.  Even 
Christ's  first  effort,  expressed  in  the  words,  Come  out  of  the  man 
(efeAfle  KK  rov  avflpwTrov),  was  followed  by  a  violent  paroxysm  (al- 
though we  must  conceive  of  the  Saviour's  power  as  purposely  mod- 
erated), and,  under  its  influence,  the  unhappy  man  spoke  in  the 
character  of  the  dominant  power  of  darkness,  his  consciousness  being 

*  Similar  expressions  from  demoniacs  occur  also  in  the  exorcising  of  a  devil  by  April- 
lonius  of  Tyana ;  but  Philostratus  probably  had  reference  in  them  to  the  narratives  of  the 
Now  Testament.  See  Baur  ut  sup.  S.  14& 


MATTHEW  VIII.  29.  369 

absorbed  in  it.  To  bring  him  out,  again,  from  this  state,  and  re- 
cover him  to  a  consciousness  of  himself,  Jesus,  diverting  him  from 
the  inventions  of  his  fancy,  inquired  his  name,  which  must  neces- 
sarily bring  him  to  reflection  on  himself.  In  the  words  of  the 
demoniac,  ri  rjfuv  (efj,oT)  KOI  ooi,  What  have  we  (or  7)  to  do  with 
thee  ?  (corresponds  to  sjVj  wV  ma,  Joshua  xxii.  24  ;  2  Sam.  xvi.  10), 
which  are  here  intended  to  denote  the  consciousness  of  complete 
distinction  of  nature,  as  well  as  in  the  invocation  "  Son  of  God," 
we  have  a  plain  instance  of  the  gift  of  clairvoyance  common  with 
persons  of  this  kind.  For  although  the  name  is  not  here  used  with 
any  definite  doctrinal  idea,  yet  it  denotes  a  holy  character,  in  whom 
the  better  self,  in  its  enlightened  seasons,  surmised  a  helper,  but  in 
whom  the  hostile  power,  when  it  gained  the  predominance,  saw  the 
judge.  Just  because  of  this  character  of  the  confession,  the  Saviour 
of  ten  forbids  it — e.  g.,  Mark  i.  34  ;  Luke  iv.  41,  OVK  £<£te  Aa/UTv  TO 
6aijj.6via,  on  ydetoav  avrov.  (See  also  Acts  xvi.  17.)  Believing  con- 
fidence alone,  and  not  knowledge  associated  with  terror,  makes  the 
confession  of  his  name  desirable.  That  it  was  not  forbidden  in  this 
case,  was  on  account  of  the  state  of  the  unhappy  man,  who  had  to 
be  treated  with  great  care.  According  to  two  of  the  Evangelists,  this 
confession  was  immediately  followed  by  the  petition,  "  do  not  torment 
me."  If  we  were  to  regard  the  man  as  the  subject  speaking,  fear  of 
suffering,  which  he  imagines  coming  upon  him  from  Jesus,  would  not 
agree  with  his  previous  approach  to  our  Lord  ;  from  which  it  must 
be  supposed  that  he  expected  good  from  him.  But  if  we  suppose 
that  it  is  the  demon  speaking  through  the  man,  the  singular  does  not 
agree  with  the  subsequent  statement,  that  many  evil  spirits  have 
possession  of  him.  But  that  the  latter  view  is  the  more  correct,  is 
shewn  by  Trpo  icaipov,  before  the  time,  Matth.  viii.  29.  For  this  sug- 
gests the  idea,  that  a  period  of  the  victory  of  light  is  at  hand,  in 
which  all  the  powers  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness  shall  be 
consigned  to  the  abyss  (a^vcraof.)  (See  note  on  Luke  x.  18.)  But 
this  idea,  correct  in  itself,  bears,  in  its  connexion,  as  uttered  by  the 
demoniac,  the  character  of  insanity.  First,  confounding  himself 
with  the  hostile  power  that  ruled  in  him,  he  utters  in  behalf  of  it  a 
prayer  which  stands  in  contradiction  with  the  inmost  longing  of  his 
real  self ;  then  again,  in  the  conversation  carried  on,  for  the  most 
part,  in  the  character  of  the  powers  of  evil,  there  is  blended  much 
derived  from  the  habits  of  the  sufferer  as  a  man,  particularly  the 
phrase,  "  I  adjure  thee  by  God"  (fym£w  oe  rov  6eov)  (Mark  v.  7), 
which,  of  course,  suits  only  his  character  as  a  man.  But  this  very 
confusion  in  the  talk  of  the  demoniac  evinces  the  truth  of  the  nar- 
rative ;  just  as  evil  is  in  itself  contradictory,  so  the  discourse  of  the 
unfortunate  subject  of  evil  likewise  appears  self-contradictory. 
As  was  hinted  above,  the  Saviour  would  not  dispel  the  power  of 
VOL.  I.— 24 


370  MATTHEW  VIII.  29. 

darkness  suddenly,  because  the  conflict  of  warring  powers  in  his  de- 
pressed organism,  instead  of  healing,  would  have  annihilated  him  : 
hence  he  wisely  prepares  the  way  for  a  complete  cure.  After  the 
first  paroxysm,  therefore,  Jesus  asks,  as  was  observed  (according  to 
Mark  v.  9  ;  Luke  viii.  30),  in  order  to  recover  him  to  a  consciousness 
of  his  individuality,  Ti  ooi  dvofia  ?  What  is  thy  name  ?  But  the  in- 
sane man,  persisting  in  his  confusion  of  himself  with  the  power 
which  ruled  over  him,  cries  out,  Legion  (Aeyeciv)  ;  and  the  Evangel- 
ists add,  that  this  name  was  suggested  by  the  impression,  that  more 
than  one  evil  .power  was  exerting  its  influence  over  him.  In  this 
trait,  error  and  truth  are  combined  with  fearful  vividness,  just  as 
they  were  interwoven  in  the  unhappy  man's  mind.  The  impression 
was  true,  that  not  merely  one  part  of  his  being  was  given  over  to  the 
influence  of  the  demoniacal  world,  but  that  his  whole  inner  man  was 
laid  open  to  them  (see  Mark  xvi.  9,  where  it  is  said  of  Mary  Magda- 
lene, that  she  had  seven  devils — i.  e.,  was  become  the  possession  of  the 
kingdom  of  sin  in  all  the  departments  of  her  being).  But  this  correct 
idea  the  sufferer  expresses  in  the  form  of  calling  himself  Legion  ; 
Mark  (v.  9)  adds,  "  for  we  are  many" — very  expressively  choosing  the 
first  person.  This  name  was  evidently  derived  from  the  immediate 
experience  of  his  senses.  The  view — which  he  might  at  some  time 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  taking  of  a  compact  Roman  legion — 
that  terrible  instrument  of  the  Roman  dominion  over  the  world,  at 
the  sight  of  which  the  Jew  especially  trembled — gives  him  the  idea, 
that  a  compact  host  of  Satanic  powers  was  come  down  upon  him. 
In  his  present  state. of  mental  aberration,  he  confounds  himself 
with  this  host,  conceives  of  it  as  a  unity  divided  into  many,  and  gives 
himself  the  name  Legion.*  The  utterance  of  this  name  is  then 
followed  (Mark  v.  10  ;  Luke  viii.  31)  by  the  repeated  (see  Matth. 
viii.  29)  petition,  in  which  the  afflicted  man  again  speaks  in  the 
character  of  the  power  that  controlled  him,  not  to  deprive  the  devils 
of  their  power,  and  send  them  to  the  abyss  (a/3vaoo<f).  (This  term 
is  used  also  in  Rom.  x.  7,  and  frequently  in  the  Apocalypse,  ix.  1, 
2,  11  ;  xi.  7  ;  xvii.  8  ;  xx.  1,  3.  It  is  used  like  Tartarus  (rdprapo^) 
[2  Peter  ii.  4],  and  Gehenna  (yeewa),  and  corresponds  to  the  He- 
brew cinrt,  which,  by  the  by,  is  not  used  in  the  Old  Testament  for 
the  dwelling-place  of  evil  spirits.  In  the  Old  Testament  fcta?  com-* 
prebends,  in  its  more  general  signification,  what  we  find  distinguished 
in  the  New.  The  <M%  or  the  </>v/taK?/  of  the  New  Testament,  as  the 
assembling  place  of  the  dead,  must  be  conceived  as  strictly  separate 

*  A  similar  instance  of  diversity  regarded  as  a  divided  unity,  may  be  found  in  the 
Eabbinical  language,  in  which  "\^A  denotes  "  the  commander  of  a  legion."  (See  Bux- 
torf,  Lex.  Talmud,  p.  1123.)  We  might  imagine  that  the  poor  man  had  an  indistinct  idea 
of  being  possessed  by  an  archfiend  (upx^v  rtiv  Aaifwvuv),  so  that  potenfia,  the  power  also 
of  the  angels  subject  to  him,  was  exercised  upon  him. 


MATTHEW  VIII.  29-32.  371 

from  the  afivooos.  See  note  on  Luke  xvi.  28.)  But  again,  popular 
notions  are  mingled  in  this  petition,  as  the  additional  clause  in  Mark 
e£«  rfjg  x<*>PaS,  out  °f  th&  region,  shews.  These  words  are,  doubtless, 
connected  with  the  popular  Jewish  opinion,  that  certain  spheres  of 
operation  were  assigned  to  the  bad  angels,  as  well  as  to  the  good.  The 
demon  desires  not  to  be  removed  out  of  his.  If  a  removal  out  of  one 
region  into  another  was  regarded  as  impossible,  their  being  driven 
out  of  the  region  assigned  would  be  precisely  equivalent  to  their 
being  sent  down  into  the  abyss. 

Ver.  30-32. —  Thus  far  the  evangelical  narrative  gives  a  most 
vivid  picture  of  this  occurrence,  which,  up  to  this  point,  appears 
closely  allied  to  all  other  narratives  of  this  sort.  But  now  a  circum- 
stance is  subjoined,  which  is  the  more  difficult,  because  the  New 
Testament  supplies  nothing  analogous  to  it ;  and  for  that  reason  it 
is  a  tempting  subject  for  the  mythical  interpretation.*  But  it  must 
be  confessed,  that,  independently  of  the  general  reasons  against  that 
interpretation,  it  is  opposed,  in  this  case,  by  the  exact  accordance 
of  all  the  three  narratives,  which  is  rarely  found  in  mythical  subjects. 
It  is  recorded  that  a  great  herd  of  swine  (Mark  v.  13,  states  the 
number  as  2000)  presented  itself  to  the  view  of  the  demoniac, f  who, 
speaking  in  the  character  of  the  hostile  power,  begged  that  the 
demons  might  be  allowed  to  enter  the  animals.  Jesus  permits  it, 
the  demons  enter  the  swine,  and  they  precipitate  themselves  from 
the  cliff  (fcpT/p'of)  into  the  lake.  The  fact  of  the  devils'  passing 
into  brute  creatures,  is  here  quite  as  difficult  as  the  subsequent  cir- 
cumstances.J  For  although  an  influence  of  what  is  spiritual  over 
what  is  physical,  both  on  the  part  of  righteousness  and  of  sin,  is  re- 
cognized throughout  the  Scriptures  (see  Gen.  iii.  17,  ff.  compared 
with  Horn.  viii.  18,  ff.),  yet  the  entering  into  the  swine  is  for  this 
reason  specially  difficult,  that  it  corresponds  with  the  entering  into 
man,  in  a  way  which  too  much  identifies  the  animal  with  the  human 
elements.  [Yet  we  have  seen  that  the  influence  of  the  demons  is 

*  As  in  the  New  Testament  the  swine  of  the  Gadarenes,  so  in  the  Old,  Balaam's  ass 
(Numb.  xxii.  28,  ff.)  forms  an  offence  and  a  stumbling-block.  In  both  events  spiritual 
effects  are  seen  in  connexion  with  the  brute  creation. 

f  The  Evangelists  seem  not  to  agree  exactly  hore,  since  Matthew  says,  the  herd  was 
at  a  distance  from  them ;  but  the  other  two,  that  they  were  there.  The-  idea  of  at  a  dis- 
tance must  be  taken  relatively ;  the  herd  was  on  the  same  plain,  which  extended  down  to 
the  lake  (£K«)I  but  a*  a  considerable  distance  (fiaKpav)  from  the  scene  of  the  dialogue. 

\  Dr.  Strauss  here,  as  everywhere,  settles  the  matter  at  once,  and  cries  Myths,  no- 
thing but  myths !  He  smiles  when  he  sees  any  one  taking  pains  to  solve  the  difficulties 
which  the  case  presents.  And  yet  this  great  master  of  negation,  in  his  review  of  Kerner'a 
work  on  similar  phenomena  of  the  present  day,  is  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  he  is 
unable  to  devise  any  solution  of  them  at  all  plausible.  What  presumption  to  deny  that 
similar  phenomena  may  have  existed  in  the  apostolic  times,  which  his  wisdom  may  not 
be  able  to  understand  I  for  he  has  no  other  reason  whatever  for  his  assertion,  that  these 
narratives  of  the  New  Testament  are  myths,  than  their  extraordinary  character.  (See 
"  Jahrbucher  fiir  wissenschaftlicho  Kritik."  1836,  Dec.  S.  Ill,  ff.) 


372  MATTHEW  VIII.  32-34. 

on  the  nervous,  i.  e.,  the  animal  system.     That  the  nervous  life  of 
brutes  is  as  excitable  as  that  of  men,  none  will  question.]     Besides, 
it  seems  unaccountable  why  the  Saviour  should  yield  to  a  passing 
whim  of  the  sufferer,  as  one  might  be  inclined  to  regard  his  request, 
to  which  the  Evangelists  ascribe  such  real  consequences  ;  first,  the 
entering  into  the  animals,  then,  their  destruction.     To  suppose  this 
destruction  occasioned  by  a  violent  assault  of  the  unhappy  man,  is 
as  contradictory  to  the  narrative,  as  to  view  it  as  accidentally  coin- 
ciding with  his  prayer.     But  if  we  assume  that,  in  the  view  of  the 
narrators,  the  destruction  of  the  animals  was  occasioned  by  the 
spirits,  we  do  not  see  what  reason  can  be  conceived  why  the  demons 
should  have  entered  the  swine  in  order  themselves  immediately  to 
destroy  these  subjects  of  their  power.     [They  did  not  enter  the 
swine  with  the  design  of  destroying,  but  of  vexing  them.     But  the 
shock  on  the  nervous  system  of  the  animals  was  too  violent  to  be 
resisted.     They  became  frantic  and  furious,  and  plunged  into  the 
sea.     Somewhat  otherwise    Olshausen.]    On  this  obscure  passage  I 
beg  leave  only  to  offer  a  few  hints  and  conjectures,  which  may  lead 
to  farther  inquiry.     The  expression,  doep%so6ai  elg  rovg  xoipovs,  must, 
in  any  case,  be  regarded  as  implying  an  influence  on  the  animals  ; 
but  this  must  have  been  immediately  intended  for  their  destruction, 
and  that  on  account  of  their  possessors.     On  the  part  of  evil,  the 
intention  of  their  destruction  might  then  have  been  to  limit  the 
Saviour's  power  in  its  beneficent  influence,  as  the  effect  of  it  actually 
was  (Matth.  viii.  34)  to  prepossess  the  minds  of  the  people  against 
our  Lord.     On  the  part  of  Christ,  the  permission  might  have  beeji 
intended,  in  respect  to  the  sufferer,  to  lighten,  by  yielding  to  him, 
his  subsequent  paroxysm  and  render  possible  his  cure  ;  in  respect 
to  the  owners  of  the  animals,  to  prove  them  by  this  worldly  loss,  and 
lead  them  to  a  decision  for  or  against  Grod  and  his  cause  ;  or,  if  we 
suppose  that  the  animals  belonged  to  Jews  (which  would  not  be  im- 
possible, since  Jews  and  heathen  were  often  mingled  in  the  border 
provinces),  it  must  have  been  a  warning  visitation,  because  a  culpa- 
ble love  of  gain  led  them  to  keep  animals,  which  by  the  law  were 
unclean.    tThis  interpretation,  at  least,  keeps  in  view  the  moral  as- 
pect of  the  transaction,  and  thus  sets  aside  the  question  how  Christ 
could  be  so  unjust  as  to  destroy  2000  swine  :  a  question  exactly 
parallel  with  the  inquiry  how  God  can  be  so  unjust  as  to  allow  in 
any  case  the  existence  of  a  murrain.     The  simple  answer  to  the 
question  is,  that  where  cattle  die,  men  are  to  be  quickened,  in  order 
to  learn  that  there  is  a  Grod,  and  that  all  that  he  does  is  right. 

Ver.  33,  34. — Matthew  follows  up  the  account  of  the  destruction 
of  the  herd  with  that  of  the  flight  of  the  herdsmen,  and  the  crowds 
of  inhabitants  coming  out  of  the  city.  Of  the  state  of  the  patient  he 
gives  no  further  account.  But  Mark  and  Luke  describe  him  most 


MATTHEW  VIII.  34 ;   IX.  1.  373 

vividly  in  his  totally  altered  condition  after  his  complete  recovery, 
which  was  doubtless  preceded  by  another  violent  paroxysm.  He  sat 
quietly  and  clothed  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  an  object  of  surprise  and  ad- 
miration to  the  inhabitants.  They  acknowledged,  that  nothing  but 
supernatural  holy  power  could  have  accomplished  the  cure  of  one  so 
shattered.  Matthew,  in  common  with  the  other  two  Evangelists, 
records,  that  the  inhabitants  besought  Jesus  to  leave  that  region.* 
This  might  have  been  an  expression  of  the  fear  of  God  (as  in  Luke 
v.  8)  ;  but  as  the  Saviour  immediately  leaves  them,  anxiety  lest 
they  should  suffer  further  loss  of  property  from  the  Deliverer  of 
souls,  may  have  mingled  in  this  request — a  meanness  of  disposition 
which  must  have  taken  from  our  Lord  all  hope  of  sowing  with  profit 
the  seed  of  eternal  life  in  a  soil  so  overgrown  with  thorns  and  this- 
tles. Mark  (v.  18-20),  and  Luke  (viii.  38,  39),  give  some  particu- 
lars of  the  man's  future  course,  which  are  unnoticed  by  Matthew.  He 
desired  to  accompany  the  Saviour  ;  but  the  latter  discouraged  him, 
and  sent  him  back  to  his  friends,  charging  him  to  tell  what  God 
had  done  for  him.  The  reason  of  this  charge  (see  note  on  Matth. 
viii.  4)  must  be  sought  in  the  man  himself  who  was  healed.  The 
deeper  the  malady  had  been  rooted  in  him,  the  more  advantageous 
it  would  be  for  him  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  duties  of  life,  since 
being  much  occupied  with  himself  might  have  drawn  him  back  to 
his  old  sins.  Moreover,  such  employments  would  form  a  salutary 
check  on  his  undue  partiality  for  solitude,  which  was,  in  all  proba- 
bility, closely  connected  with  the  vices  that  had  laid  the  foundation 
of  such  a  surrender  to  the  evil  powers.  And,  lastly,  the  telling  of 
his  being  healed  by  the  Messiah  of  Nazareth,  naturally  confirmed 
his  faith  in  his  deliverer. 


§  11.  CURE  OF  A  PARALYTIC. 

(Matth.  ix.  1-8;  Mark  v.  21;  ii.  1-12;  Luke  v.  17-26.) 

Matthew  proceeds  in  his  delineation  of  Jesus  as  a  worker  of 
miracles,  without  reflections  and  eulogies,  merely  by  the  simple 
narration  of  mighty  acts  that  fill  the  soul  with  holy  astonishment. 
His  call  by  our  Lord  (ver.  9,  ff.)  does,  indeed,  seem  interposed  as 
something  foreign  to.  the  subject  ;  but  it  is  manifestly  narrated  not 
on  its  own  account,  but  for  the  sake  of  what  stands  connected  with 
it  (ver.  11-13).  The  Evangelist  means  to  exhibit  the  contradiction 
which  existed  between  the  judgment  of  the  Pharisees,  uttered  at  the 
feast  in  Matthew's  house,  and  that  of  the  people,  as  to  the  person 


*  The  phrase  IZ&pxeadat.  elf  awuvrrjaiv  TIVI,  is  not  found  anywhere  else  in  the  New 
Testament,  except  in  Matth.  viii.  34.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  LXX.  use  it  several 
times  —  e.  g.,  Gen.  xiv.  17  ;  Deut.  L  44. 


374  MATTHEW  IX.  1. 

of  Christ,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  shew  how  our  Lord  fulfilled  his 
high  calling  in  such  miraculous  cures.  It  must  be  confessed,  that 
the  verses  14-17  have  a  less  direct  reference  to  the  context  of  the 
ninth  chapter.  They  seem  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the  previous 
narrative  of  the  feast,  and  to  serve  merely  to  complete  the  narrative 
of  a  day  so  important  to  Matthew. 

If,  too,  we  compare  the  place  of  the  first  event  of  this  chapter  in 
Matthew,  with  that  which  it  occupies  in  Mark  and  Luke,  we  again 
meet  with  a  remarkable  variation.  According  to  Matth.  ix.  1 
2,  the  cure  of  the  paralytic  is  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  ac- 
count of  the  demoniac,  as  having  taken  place  directly  after  arriving 
at  the  other  side  of  the  lake.  Mark  and  Luke,  on  the  other  hand, 
assign  this  event  to  an  earlier  period.  The  former  connects  it  with 
the  history  of  the  cure  of  the  leper  (Mark  i.  40,  ff.)  Luke  does, 
indeed,  likewise  connect  it  with  this  event  (ver.  17) ;  but  with  the 
loose  expression  :  iyivero  KV  \iia  iGav  fj^epwv,  it  came  to  pass  on  one  of 
the  days.  The  account  of  his  call,  and  the  circumstances  connected 
with  it,  which,  in  Matthew,  follow  the  cure  of  the  paralytic,  are, 
indeed,  placed  in  the  same  sequence  in  Mark  and  Luke ;  but  the 
narrative  of  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood,  which  comes  next 
in  Matthew  (ix.  18,  ff.),  is  recorded  by  Mark  (v.  22,  ff.),  and  Luke 
(viii.  41,  ff.),  much  later.  The  difficulties  arising  hence  in  a  chro- 
nological arrangement  of  the  several  sections  of  the  Gospels  appear 
to  us  insuperable. 

Matth.  ix.  1. — Mark  does  indeed  also  mention  the  circumstance, 
that  Jesus  returned  to  the  west  coast  of  the  lake  after  the  cure  of 
the  demoniac  ;  but  his  narrative  becomes  indefinite  in  the  words  : 
"  And  he  was  by  the  sea-side,"  and  he  then  introduces  the  narrative 
of  Jairus'  daughter  with  the  phrase  :  "  And  lo."  Matthew  makes 
him  go  immediately  to  Capernaum  (tdia  7r6/U$-),  which  Mark  (ii.  1) 
also  mentions  as  the  place  where  the  paralytic  was.  Mark  and  Luke 
carefully  describe  the  scene  in  the  house  where  Jesus  was.  People 
filled  the  porch  of  the  house  (ra  Trpb$  TT/V  Ovpav  scil.  fieprj  =  vestibu- 
lum),  so  that  the  entrance  was  closed  up.  Among  those  present, 
Luke  enumerates  learned  Jews  (vopodiddoKakoi,  teachers  of  the  law 
=  ypa^tarelg,  scribes,  CPIBO),  some  of  whom  were  even  from  Judea 
and  Jerusalem  ;  but  that  they  were  come  to  Capernaum  purposely  on 
account  of  Jesus,  is  a  gratuitous  conjecture.  Our  Lord  is  repre- 
sented as  being  employed  partly  in  teaching  (tXdtei  avrol^  rbv  Aoyov 
scil.  Trepi  Trjg  ftamXeia^,  Mark  ii.  2),  and  partly  in  healing. 

The  words  in  Luke  v.  17  (dvvafiig  nvpiov  rjv  dg  TO  laaQai  avrovg), 
lit.  there  was  the  power  of  the  Lord  to  heal  them,  are  very  obscure. 
There  is  no  previous  substantive  to  which  the  word  avrovg,  them, 
refers  ;  we  might  take  it  as  an  indication  that  Luke,  in  the  narrative 
of  the  event,  had  incorporated  a  document  with  his  gospel,  without 


MATTHEW  IX.  1,  2.  375 

taking  care  to  alter  what  in  it  had  reference  to  some  antecedent. 
But  the  words  dvva^ig  Kvpiov  ?/v,  there  was  the  power  of  the  Lord, 
are  still  more  difficult.  To  refor  nvpiog,  Lord,  to  God,  so  that  we 
should  have  to  supply,  "  with  Jesus"  (,uerd  'Irjaoty,  in  the  sense  of 
the  power  of  God  being  with  him,  so  that  he  could  heal,  makes  too 
harsh  an  ellipsis.  But  as  referred  to  Christ,  the  thought  can  be  no 
other  than  this,  that  the  power  of  healing  that  dwelt  in  him  mani- 
fested itself;  so  that  ty  was,  would  have  to  be  interpreted  with  a 
pregnant  meaning,  perhaps  with  ipya^ofiKvr],  working,  supplied. 

Ver.  2. — On  this  occasion,  among  other  sick  people,  they  brought 
a  paralytic  (see  note  on  Matth.  viii.  6)  to  Christ,  who  could  not,  how- 
ever, as  he  was  laid  upon  a  bed,  be  brought  to  him  in  the  usual  way, 
because  of  the  crowd.  Mark  and  Luke  relate  in  detail  the  manner 
in  which  those  who  carried  the  sick  man  made  their  way  to  Jesus. 
The  whole  description  can  be  understood  only  from  the  oriental  con- 
struction of  houses,  in  consequence  of  which  the  flat  roof  might  be 
reached  either  by  a  ladder  from  the  outside,  or  from  a  neighbouring 
house.  Still  the  breaking  up  of  the  top-floor,  which  was  generally 
laid  with  tiles  (dia  r&v  ttepdfiuv,  in  Luke),  appears  somewhat  strange  ; 
but  perhaps  the  description  is  to  be  understood  of  their  somewhat 
enlarging  the  entrance  into  the  house  from  above.  ('ATroareya^w, 
unroofing,  Mark  ii.  4,  is  a  strong  term  to  express  the  undertaking 
of  the  people,  so  strong  in  faith.  Xa/law  =  ;^a/ia£a>,  used  by  Mark, 
is  several  times  found  in  Luke  also,  v.  4,  5  ;  Acts  ix.  25  ;  xxvii.  17. 
Kpd(3(3arog  =  grabatus,  corresponds  to  nkividiov  in  Luke.)  In  this 
proceeding,  though  extraordinary,  and  in  some  measure  even  annoy- 
ing, the  compassionate  Saviour  saw  only  the  faith  of  the  parties 
concerned.  (The  faith  of  the  sick  man  is  viewed  as  one  with  that 
of  the  friends  who  assisted  him  ;  he  doubtless  encourged  them,  and 
imparted  to  them  his  own  lively  emotions.)  In  this  case,  again  (see 
note  on  Matth.  viii.  1),  definite  doctrinal  ideas  do  not  form  the  sub- 
stance of  this  faith,  which  consists  rather  in  the  inward  need  of  help, 
that  feels  itself  powerfully  attracted  to  that  quarter  whence  it  ex- 
pects help.  That  this  sense  of  need  was,  in  some  of  the  cases  of 
cures  only  external,  is  seen  from  the  narratives  such  as  that  in  Luke 
xvii.  12,  ff.,  of  the  ten  lepers.  Usually,  however,  the  external  need 
was  associated  with  the  internal,  and,  in  every  instance,  the  latter 
was  intended  to  be  aroused  by  the  former  ;  and  where  that  did  not 
happen,  reproof  was  administered.  The  words  immediately  ad- 
dressed to  the  sick  man  by  our  Lord  :  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee, 
shew  that  in  this  case  there  was  no  want  of  inward  susceptibility. 
Perhaps  this  address  was  occasioned  by  penitential  expressions  on 
the  part  of  the  paralytic,  which  the  words  (in  Matthew)  Bdpoei 
TKKVOV,  son,  be  of  good  cheer,  might  suggest.  His  peculiar  sin  might 
have  brought  on  the  illness  under  which  he  was  suffering,  and  thus 


376  MATTHEW  IX.  2,  3. 

have  excited  a  sense  of  his  sinfulness.  But  even  if  that  was  not 
the  case,  still  Christ  might  have  felt  himself  called  to  pass  at  once 
from  the  outward  phenomenon  to  its  moral  source,  in  order  to  pre- 
pare for  the  inward  cure  by  the  outward  one.  The  connexion  of 
sin  and  disease,  or  suffering  of  any  kind,  is  a  necessary  one.  The 
Jews,  like  the  unspiritual  man  in  general  (see  John  ix.  2,  34),  erred 
only  in  this,  that,  from  a  case  of  affliction,  they  felt  themselves  war- 
ranted to  criminate  the  patient  personally,  which  necessarily  gave 
rise  to  false  and  unrighteous  judgments.  The  just  conclusion  is  to 
regard  the  suffering  of  the  individual  as  proof  of  the  guilt  of  the 
whole  race,  and  consequently  of  himself ;  that  produces  humility 
and  meekness.  (See  note  on  Luke  xiii.  4.)  But  in  whatever  light 
we  view  the  condition  of  the  sufferer,  Jesus  announces  to  him  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  This  is  to  be  viewed  as  the  root  of  the  new  life 
that  was  to  be  awakened  in  the  soul  of  the  penitent,  which,  however, 
could  only  gradually  (as  we  see  in  the  case  of  the  apostles)  trans- 
form the  whole  inner  man  ;  so  that  dQeuvrai  (the  Doric  form)  is  to 
be  taken  not  as  a  wish,  but  as  creative  and  effective  :  "  Thy  sins 
are  forgiven  ;  I  forgive  them  thee  even  now."  But  in  those  words, 
the  Saviour  had  regard  not  only  to  the  good  of  the  sufferer,  but  also 
to  the  spiritual  awakening  of  the  people,  and  even  of  the  Pharisees, 
as  the  sequel  of  the  conversation  shews. 

Ver.  3. — The  Pharisees  had  a  correct  insight  into  the  nature  of 
forgiveness  of  sins  ;  they  recognized  in  it  a  prerogative  of  God ; — 
that  is,  so  far  as  it  is  intended  to  be  not  merely  a  kind  wish  or  an 
empty  declaration,  but  a  living  effect,  it  presupposes  a  knowledge  of 
the  secrets  of  the  heart,  and  a  divine  power  of  life,  which  is  capable 
of  overcoming  the  sinful  power,  and  of  translating  into  the  element 
of  the  spirit.  Hence,  so  far  as  the  church  forgives  sins  (John  xx. 
23),  God  is  in  it,  and  the  persons  who  pronounce  the  forgiveness  are 
only  the  organs  of  the  forgiving  power  of  God.  But  as  Jesus  here 
forgives  sin,  not  in  the  name  of  another,  but  in  his  own,  and  in  full 
inward  power,  their  accusation  would  have  been  true,  if,  as  they 
imagined,  Jesus  were  a  mere  man.  They  regarded  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  as  a  sacred  act  of  God,  which  no  one*  could  perform  without 
robbing  God  of  his  honour  ;  and  in  that  they  were  perfectly  right. 
(The  profound  sense  which  the  Scriptures  attach  to  /3Aa<7077fi£a>, 
]3Aaa0^ta,  is  unknown  to  the  profane  writers  of  antiquity  ;  it  there 
denotes  primarily  only  "  to  speak  injuriously  of  any  one,"  then  "  to 
utter  something  of  evil  omen,"  the  opposite  of  evfirjuelv.  It  is 
monotheism  only  that  leads  to  the  notion  of  blasphemy  [correspond- 
ing to  the  phrase  n^rr  DW  a;?;  in  the  Old  Testament],  which  denotes 
not  only  cursing  and  blaspheming  God,  but  also,  in  particular,  the 
assumption  of  the  honour  of  the  Creator  on  the  part  of  the  crea- 
ture, John  x.  33.)  But  as  the  Redeemer  is  the  only-begotten  Son 


MATTHEW  IX.  3-7.  377 

of  the  Father,  he  exercised  even  this  prerogative  ;  and  blessed  was 
the  man  who  believed  in  him,  for  he  experienced  the  saving  power 
of  the  Lord  in  his  heart.  But  we  must  allow,  that  thoughts  like 
those  of  the  Pharisees  might  have  occurred  to  a  mind,  not  indeed 
decidedly  irreligious,  but  more  prone  to  speculation ;  for  faith  in  the 
revelation  of  God  in  Christ  is  something  very  great.  Such  genuine 
doubt,  or,  rather,  such  an  uncertainty,  would  have  exhibited  itself 
very  differently  from  what  it  did  in  the  Pharisees  ;  in  them  the 
Saviour  sharply  reproves  such  thoughts,  as  sinful.  The  reason  was 
probably  the  following  : — The  conspicuous  majesty  of  Jesus,  which 
was  reflected  purely  in  childlike  minds,  reached  their  hearts  also  ; 
but  they  opposed  themselves  to  these  sacred  impressions,  from  the 
feeling  that,  if  they  gave  entrance  to  them,  they  must  renounce  al- 
together their  principles  and  their  practices.  Standing  thus  in  inward 
opposition  to  God,  they  were  glad  to  make  use  of  circumstances, 
which  might  be  perplexing  even  to  sincere  minds,  as  a  welcome 
means  of  enabling  them  to  justify  their  conduct  in  their  own  eyes. 
(EtTreZv  iv  eafroj,  &v  Kapdia  =  te-53  ittx.  Luke  uses  diahoyi&adai,  by 
which  the  activity  of  the  Adyof  =  vovg  is  expressed.  '  But  the 
dmAoyiCTf/ot,  according  to  the  invariable  use  in  Scripture,  are  referred 
to  the  Kapdia,  A.  See  note  on  Luke  ii.  35.) 

Ver.  4,  5. — Jesus,  penetrating  their  thoughts  (Mark  ii.  8  rightly 
assigns  the  spirit  as  the  principle  of  knowledge  in  him),  reproves 
their  sin,  but  does  not  deal  with  them  as  incorrigible  persons. 
Knowing  the  impurity  of  their  hearts,  and  the  difficulty  of  believing, 
our  Lord  endeavours,  by  an  external  fact,  to  aid  in  overcoming  these 
difficulties.  Accordingly,  the  miracle  (see  note  on  Matth.  viii.  1) 
appears  here  in  its  proper  intention  of  deepening  the  impression  on 
the  heart,  presupposed  by  it,  in  order  to  bring  to  the  conviction  that 
the  worker  of  miracles  does  not  teach  wJiat  is  true  in  his  own  name, 
but  the  truth  by  commission  from  above.  ('Evdvpelodai,  Matth.  i. 
20  ;  Acts  x.  19,  and  KvOvujjoeig,  Matth.  xii.  25  ;  Heb.  iv.  12,  are 
nearly  related  to  dtakoyi&adai  and  diahoyiO[.i6g}  like  Ovpog  to  Kapdia. 
But  the  former  terms  have  generally  a  bad  meaning  associated  with 
them.  We  might  denominate  dv/j-og  the  disturbed  Kapdia,  and  the 
lvdvp,i'iaet,g  the  impure  actions  thence  proceeding.  The  question  of 
our  Lord,  ri.tariv  eyKOTrwrepov,  ivliich  is  easier  ?  is  accommodated  to 
the  external  mode  of  conception,  which  the  miracle  was  intended  to 
assist.  According  to  it,  what  is  external  is  called  greater,  more 
difficult,  than  what  is  internal — that  is,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  the 
spiritual  eye,  indeed,  takes  the  opposite  view  of  them.) 

Ver.  6,  7. — As  Son  of  Man,  Jesus  expressly  claims  the  authority 
to  forgive  sins,  which  involves  the  declaration  of  his  higher  na- 
ture. In  the  expression  :  Son  of  man  on  earth,  there  is  the  implied 
contrast  with  God  in  heaven  ;  so  that  <  the  Messiah  appears  as  the 


378  MATTHEW  IX.  7,  8. 

representative  of  God  upon  earth.  The  idea  of  the  Jews,  that  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  would  be  among  the  prerogatives  of  the  Messiah 
(Schottgen,  "  Jesus  der  wahre  Messias,"  Leipzig,  1744,  S.  307.  Ber- 
tholdt  Cfiristol.  Jud.,  p.  159,  seqq.),  evidently  expressed  the  recogni- 
tion of  his  higher  nature  ;  hence  Jesus  desires  to  rouse  to  a  convic- 
tion of  the  true  nature  of  the  Son  of  Man.  (Fritzsche  removes  the 
difficulties  in  the  construction  of  the  clause,  rore  /tey«  roi  Trapakv- 
TtKw  [Matth.  ix.  6],  by  the  ingenious  conjecture  rode  ;  but,  as  the 
Codd.  exhibit  no  various  reading,  he  has  properly  refrained  from  in- 
troducing it  into  the  text.  According  to  the  common  reading,  we 
must  take  the  words  as  parenthetical,  and  interposed  by  the  Evan- 
gelist.) 

Ver.  8. — The  narrative  is  silent  as  to  the  effect  of  the  miracle  on 
the  Pharisees,  because  there  was  nothing  pleasing  to  report  ;  but  it 
is  observed  of  the  simple  people  who  were  open  to  divine  influence, 
that  they  proclaimed  God's  praise  with  wonder,  entirely  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Saviour's  intention,  blessing  the  author  of  all  good  for 
the  revelation  of  his  glory  in  him.  (See  Matth.  v.  16.)  The  con- 
cluding clause  in  Matthew,  rbv  dovra  £%ovaiav  roiavrrjv  TOI$  dvQpuTroig, 
who  gave  such  authority  to  men,  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  if  (i&vaia 
being  taken  as  the  cause  for  the  effect)  it  was  in  praise  of  the  bless- 
ings flowing  from  God  to  men  through  Jesus  ;  dvdpcmot,  men  = 
yevoq  r&v  dvdpuTTw,  human  race,  rather  includes  Jesus  himself,  in 
whose  gift  of  miracles  the  divine  power  was  so  gloriously  manifested. 
Without  being  able  to  define  doctrinally  the  view  held  by  the  mul- 
titude regarding  the  person  of  Jesus,  we  may  say,  that  this  thought 
has  its  full  eternal  truth.  For,  as  certainly  as  the  Word  of  the 
Father  was  revealed  in  the  person  of  our  Lord,  so  certainly  was 
Jesus  also  truly  man  ;  and  what  of  divine  fulness  was  manifested  in 
him  had  been  imparted  to  the  human  race  in  general  in  his  human- 
ity. (Instead  of  dav^eiv,  wonder,  used  in  Matthew,  Mark  has  tf io- 
raoBai,  amazed,  and  Luke  KKOTCLGK;  ZkaQev  dnavrag,  amazement  seized 
them  all.  The  latter  expression  is  the  stronger  ;  it  denotes  being  in 
transports.  [See  Mark  v.  42  ;  Acts  iii.  10.]  In  other  places  this 
expression  has  a  qualified  signification  [see  note  on  Acts  x.  10],  and 
is  used,  like  being  in  the  /Spirit  (£v  Trvevfiari  elvai),  of  a  state  of 
prophetic  rapture.  In  Luke  v.  26,  napddo^a  =  Oavfiaord,  corre- 
sponds to  the  Hebrew  ri'.sVfis]. 


MATTHEW  IX.  9, 10.  379 

§  12.  THE  CALLING  OF  MATTHEW.    OF  FASTING. 

(Matth.  ix.  9-lf  ;  Mark  ii.  13-22 ;  Luke  v.  27-39.) 

It  is  but  incidentally  that  Matthew  touches  upon  his  call  to  the 
apostleship,  and  without  making  himself  personally  prominent.* 
Sacred  as  was  to  him  the  moment  which  called  him  into  immediate 
proximity  to  the  Redeemer,  his  spiritual  eye  remained,  neverthe- 
less, exclusively  fixed  upon  the  sublime  object  which  he  wished  to 
represent  to  his  readers.  He  alludes  to  his  call,  only  for  the  sake 
of  the  events  connected  with  it.  Both  Mark  and  Luke  give  to  him, 
who  was  called  on  this  occasion,  the  name  of  Levi ;  but  the  simi- 
larity of  the  narrative  and  the  identity  of  the  discourses  connected 
with  it,  compel  us  to  regard  the  names,  though  different,  as  denot- 
ing one  and  the  same  individual.  All  attempts  to  represent  them 
as  denoting  different  persons,  have  proved  futile.f 

Ver.  9. — MarflaZof .  =  *»*;>?,  Qeotiupo?.  The  rekuviov  =  os«n  rpa, 
which,  according  to  Buxtorf  (Lex.  Talmud,  p.  1065),  properly  sig- 
nifies "  an  exchange."  The  call  anokovdei  pot,  like  the  devre  dirtou 
[lov  (iv.  19,  comp.  with  ver.  22),  implies,  not  only  the  outward  at- 
tendance to  which  the  Lord  here  invites  him,  but  also  the  internal 
spiritual  following,  which  is  its  proper  ground.  A  previous  acquaint- 
ance with  Matthew  must  be  supposed,  for  otherwise  the  Redeemer 
could  not  have  invited  him  to  leave  his  official  position  ;  and  with- 
out doubt,  Matthew  had  already  taken  the  necessary  steps  to  relieve 
himself  from  his  office.  (?) 

Ver.  10. — Matthew  joyfully  received  into  his  house  the  Saviour 
who  had  called  him  to  a  nobler  office  ;  he  prepared  for  him  a  do^fi 
(j,eydATj,  great  feast,  —  ™?fc»,  Gen.  xxvi.  30.  This  word  is  also  met 
with  in  Luke  xiv.  13.  (Concerning  reAuvTjg  and  dpap-uAog  compare 
the  remarks  on  Matth.  v.  46.)  The  Evangelist  contrasts  our  Sa- 
viour, choosing  a  publican  for  an  apostle,  with  the  Pharisees  who 
would  not  even  permit  any  intercourse  with  those  unfortunate  be- 
ings, who  were  devoted  to  the  world,  but  whose  hearts,  notwith- 

*  This  keeping  of  their  own  persons  in  the  background,  on  the  part  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, is  a  peculiar  feature  of  the  Gospels ;  the  Evangelists  thereby  show  themselves  to  be 
pure  historians,  altogether  absorbed  by  the  sublimity  of  their  subject.  Against  the  authen- 
ticity of  Matthew,  as  little  can  be  inferred  from  the  circumstance  of  his  not  making  him- 
self known,  as  against  that  of  John,  for  the  same  reason.  The  position  of  this  event  ap- 
pears, no  doubt,  to  be  unchronological ;  but,  in  the  first  place,  Matthew  does  not  pretend 
to  any  chronological  order ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  present  call  of  Matthew  pre- 
supposes an  earlier  invitation  on  the  part  of  Christ. 

f  Mark  (ii.  14)  calls  Levi  rdv  rov  'AA^a/ov.  This  Alpheus  is,  at  all  events,  a  different 
person  from  the  father  of  James  (Matth.  x.  3);  for  the  existence  of  any  relationship  be- 
tween James  and  Matthew,  cannot  be  rendered  probable  by  any  circumstance  whatever. 


380  MATTHEW  IX.  10-14. 

r 

standing,  were  often  filled  with  the  noblest  longings.  Yet  do  these 
Pharisees  not  appear  as  wicked  and  malicious  ;  but  rather  as  inca- 
pable, from  their  narrow  view,  of  comprehending  the  freeness  of 
Christ's  love.  Our  Lord,  therefore,  opens  to  them  an  insight  into 
a  purer  life  than  any  which  they  conceived. 

Ver.  12,  13. — Jesus  describes,  in  few  words,  his  holy  office  as 
the  Physician  of  mankind.  The  man  exposed  to  contagion  may  do 
well  in  shunning  the  diseased  person  ;  but  the  physician  hastens  to 
him  to  relieve  his  suffering.  Jesus  represents  himself  as  larpog,  i.  e., 
physician  of  the  soul  according  to  Exod.  xv.  26,  where  Jehovah  him- 
self says  to  wretched  Israel  :  ^sh  nirn  t5N  is.  In  the  parallel  pas- 
sage in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  his  vocation  (tpxeadai,  come,  =  to  the 
more  usual  £p%eaOai  d$  rbv  KOO^OV,  come  into  the  ivorld,  signifies  the 
appearing  on  earth  of  one  belonging  to  a  higher  order  of  things), 
dinaioi,  righteous,  stands,  as  explanatory  of  h^vpoi,  whole,  sound, 
as  dpapTukoi,  sinners,  of  naK&g  fyovTeg,  afflicted,  sick.  Without 
denying  the  universal  sinfulness  of  mankind,  we  yet  see  that  the 
sacred  writers  frequently  draw  a  line  of  distinction  between  men. 
(Comp.  the  remarks  on  Luke  xv.  7.)  Sin,  as  it  were,  concentrates 
itself  in  some  individuals.  But  these  are  often  the  very  persons  on 
whom  the  Redeemer,  in  his  grace,  first  has  compassion.  The  right- 
eous (those  who  are  according  to  the  law  less  culpable)  then  fre- 
quently act  the  part  of  the  jealous  brother  on  the  calling  home  of 
the  prodigal  son.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Luke  xv.)  Calling 
expresses  the  act  of  the  Redeemer  in  reference  to  the  sinners 
Tw/lot)  ;  it  signifies  the  gracious  call  of  our  Lord  to  his  feast  of  joy. 
(Comp.  on  this  word  and  its  relation  to  tickeyeiv,  select,  the  remarks 
on  Matth.  xxii.  14.)  Luke  adds  ei?  perdvoiav,  to  repentance,  which, 
in  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  an  interpolation  ;  the  repentance  (comp. 
the  remarks  on  Matth.  iii.  2)  being  viewed  as  the  first  step  towards 
the  kingdom  of  Gl-od.  Matthew,  moreover,  adds  to  this  idea  a  re- 
ference to  Hos.  vi.  6.  (The  word  tropeveadai,  go,  is  redundant,  ac- 
cording to  the  analogy  of  TjVn).  In  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament 
seer,  the  dazzling  brightness  of  the  rising  sun  already  clearly  shines 
forth  ;  the  life  manifested  in  self-denying  love  appears  as  outshin- 
ing all  sacrifices  nat  tfti  ••nscn  151-1,  /  will  have  mercy,  etc.  Hence, 
in  these  words  the  sacrifices  do  not  appear  to  be  abrogated,  but  on 
the  contrary,  consummated,  in  the  true  sacrifice,  of  which  all  the 
others  are  but  types.  The  word  ion  =  ZXeog,  signifies  love,  as  it 
manifests  itself  to  the  unhappy,  and  hence  is  not  a  matter  of  per- 
sonal enjoyment,  but  of  self-sacrifice.  Such  an  explanation  of  the 
holy  Scriptures  to  the  scribes  was  to  them  a  powerful  exhortation 
to  repentance. 

Ver.  14. — Afterwards,  the  same  Pharisees  (according  to  Luke), 
or  some  disciples  of  John  who  were  present  (according  to  Matthew), 


MATTHEW  IX.  14, 15.  381 

or  both  together  (as  Mark,  reconciling  the  difference,  says),  bring 
forward  another  peculiarity  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  viz.,  their  ab- 
stinence from  fasting  and  stated  prayer  (Luke  v.  33) — on  which 
things  even  the  Baptist,  in  conformity  with  his  Old  Testament  ten- 
dencies, laid  great  stress. 

Ver.  15. — The  Kedeemer,  as  one  who  always  penetrated  to  the 
depths  of  the  spirit,  immediately  goes  to  the  root  of  these  outward 
peculiarities,  and  then  sets  before  them  the  essential  difference  be- 
tween the  Old  and  New  Testament  dispensations.  In  the  first 
place,  says  Jesus,  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  lies 
not  in  such  external  matters  ;  in  his  church,  life  would  here- 
after exhibit  itself  in  another  way,  more  analogous  to  the  New  Test- 
ament. He  therefore  compares  himself  to  a  bridegroom,  and  his 
disciples  to  the  friends  of  the  bridegroom  (comp.  the  remarks  on 
John  iii.  29),  and  deduces  from  this  comparison,  what  is  necessary 
for  his  purpose.  As  marriage  is  the  season  for  the  most  heart- 
felt joy,  so  also  the  Lord's  appearance  in  the  world  ;  streams  of 
light  and  life  filled  the  heart ;  eating  and  drinking,  and  full  en- 
joyment, appear  as  the  outward  manifestation  of  inward  joy.  Sor- 
row, indicated  by  fasting,  could  take  place  only  at  the  death  of  the 
bridegroom  ;  but  then,  indeed,  so  much  the  more  bitter  and  acute. 
The  striking  points  in  the  comparison  are,  first,  that  the  disciples 
are  designated  viol  rov  vvfup&vog,  children  of  the  bridechamber, 
(=Trapavvfi,(f)ioi,  i.e.,  companions  of  the  bridegroom  to  the  bridal- 
chamber  ;  w[MJx!)v  =n£h),  since  they,  together  with  all  believers,  are 
the  bride  herself.  (Comp.  Eph.  v.  23.)  There  is,  however,  another 
admissible  view  of  the  disciples,  viz.,  as  the  first  rays  which  the 
rising  Sun  of  the  spiritual  world  sent  forth  among  mankind  ;  they 
introduced,  as  it  were,  the  heavenly  bridegroom  to  his  earthly  bride. 
Secondly,  it  is  not  quite  clear  how  the  words  orav  dirapBq,  lohen  Tie 
shall  be  taken  away,  are  to  be  connected  with  the  expression  VT\G- 
revaovatv,  they  shall  fast,  by  which  they  are  followed.  If  we  regard 
it  as  signifying  the  death  of  the  Eedeemer  on  the  cross,  the  mean- 
ing would  appear  to  be,  that  the  church  would  fast  during  the 
whole  time  of  his  absence,  until  his  coming  again  to  glory.  But 
this  idea  seems  unsuitable,  for  the  reason  that  the  resurrection  of 
the  Kedeemer  immediately  dispelled  the  sorrow  for  his  death  ; — 
and  yet  the  Saviour  could  certainly  not  have  intended  to  say  that 
his  disciples  would  fast  only  on  the  one  day  during  which  he  re- 
mained in  the  grave.  We  must  therefore  look  for  a  more  spiritual 
meaning,  which  removes  the  difficulties,  and  apprehends  the  per- 
manent application  of  our  Lord's  language.  For  his  words  are  spirit 
and  life  (John  vi.  63),  and,  as  such,  they  must  have  a  spiritual  sig- 
nificancy  applicable  to  the  church  at  all  times.  What  Christ  here 
says,  holds  of  his  disciples  in  every  age  ;  sometimes  they  rejoice, 


382  MATTHEW  IX.  15-17. 

sometimes  they  fast.  It  is  evident  that  the  question  is  not  so  much 
respecting  the  bodily  presence  of  our  Redeemer  (emfypca  aladriTrj), 
which,  for  Judas  certainly,  was  not  a  time  of  nuptial  joy,  as  his 
eternal  spiritual  presence  in  the  soul  fyhn&gtfa  VOTJTTJJ.  But  this  pre- 
sence of  our  Redeemer  is  more  glorious  and  efficacious  after  the  re- 
surrection than  before.  Referring  the  words  of  Jesus  to  this,  we 
obtain  the  profound  idea,  that  even  in  believers  there  are  internal 
vicissitudes — vicissitudes  of  light  and  darkness  (James  i.  17),  inas- 
much as,  at  one  time,  there  prevails  a  nuptial  joy,  and,  at  another, 
grief  for  the  departed  bridegroom  ;  and  that,  accordingly,  their  out- 
ward life  also  assumes  a  different  character.  Yet  the  joyous  dispo- 
sition is  conceived  as  predominating  under  the  New  Testament ;  the 
graver  and  sterner  under  the  Old. 

Yer.  16,  17. — Since,  however,  there  was  something  in  the  re- 
marks of  the  Pharisees  and  the  disciples  of  John  (ver  14)  which 
challenged  a  reply,  the  Lord  finally  declares,  by  means  of  two 
similes  (Luke  v.  36,  uses,  on  this  occasion,  the  expression  Tropa/to/b/, 
which  is  here  applicable  only  in  its  wider  sense  ;  comp.  on  this  the 
remarks  on  Matt,  xiii.),  that  the  two  dispensations  do  not  admit  of 
being  confounded.  The  new  spirit  requires  a  new  form  ;  and  even 
though,  in  the  New  Testament  life,  we  meet  with  forms  allied  to 
those  of  the  old  dispensation,  they  still  differ  from  the  phenomena 
of  a  life  purely  under  the  law.  Both  similes  certainly  express  the 
same  idea,  but  are  conceived  from  different  points  of  view ;  and  the 
difference  in  the  points  of  view  explains  the  difference  in  the  similes 
themselves.* 

In  the  former,  that  which  is  new  is  considered  as  merely  inci- 
dental, remedying  the  deficiencies  of  the  old — for  in  this  light  the 
Gospel  must  have  appeared  to  the  Pharisees  from  their  own  limited 
point  of  view.  In  the  latter  simile,  on  the  contrary,  that  which  is 
new  appears  as  essential,  while  that  which  is  old  is  regarded  as  merely 
formal — such,  in  truth,  was  the  real  relation  of  the  two.  By  the 

*  Neander,  in  his  Kl.  Gelegenheitsschr.  S.  144,  so  explains  these  similes  as  not  to 
refer  them  to  the  relation  between  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  but  to  the  disciples  of 
John,  who  appear  as  the  interrogators ;  so  that  Christ  explained  to  them  the  cause  of 
their  astonishment  at  the  difference  between  their  own  way  of  living  and  that  of  Christ's 
disciples.  It  arose,  he  says,  from  this,  that  the  disciples  of  John  were  still  moving  in 
the  sphere  of  obsolete  Judaism,  and  hence  could  not  comprehend  the  spirit  of  his  new 
doctrine.  For  this  reason,  it  would  be  of  no  use  to  invite  them  to  adopt  the  new  manner 
of  life  of  his  own  disciples.  The  old  garment  of  the  old  nature  cannot  well  be  mended 
with  a  single  patch  of  new  cloth  ;  wherever  regeneration  has  not  taken  place,  a  reform  in 
detail  will  not  be  durable.  Although  this  view  contains  much  that  is  commendable,  yet  I 
prefer  that  explanation  which  preserves  the  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment ;  the  whole  connexion  imperatively  demands  this.  The  difference  between  the 
similes  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  remark  on  the  different  points  of  view  from  which 
they  are  taken,  and  which  will  also  aid  in  the  solution  of  other  difficulties  in  the  parables 
of  the  evr.r.gelical  history.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Luke  xviii.  1,  seq.) 


MATTHEW  IX.  17.  383 

combination  of  the  two  similes,  our  merciful  Lord,  graciously  con- 
descending to  human  weakness,  satisfied  the  wants  of  all.  The 
Pharisees  themselves  could  not  but  perceive  that  they  were  unable 
to  screen  the  imperfections  of  their  dispensation  (i.  e.,  of  the  Old 
Testament)  by  the  superinduction  of  the  evangelical  element ; 
that  could  as  little  have  a  beneficial  effect,  as  an  unmoistened 
piece  of  new  cloth,  if  put  on  an  old  cloak.  ('ETujQA^jua  is  found 
only  in  this  passage  ;  according  to  Suidas,  it  is  TO  r<5  Tpwr^po) 
£m(3aM6p.evov.  The  patch  of  cloth  being  viewed  as  filling  up  a  rent, 
is  called  TrAjypwjua,  'Pa«of,  from  pf/craw,  signifies  a  "  piece  torn  off" — 
a  rag,  or  patch ;  dyvafog,  "  not  fulled  or  dressed.")  Luke  v.  36, 
views  the  simile  in  a  different  light.  He  conceives  a  piece  torn  off 
from  a  new  garment,  and  applied  to  the  mending  of  an  old  one. 
This  produces  a  double  disadvantage.  For,  in  the  first  place,  dam- 
age is  done  to  the  new  garment,  and  in  the  second,  the  new  piece 
does  not  agree  with  the  old  garment.  This  mode  of  viewing  the 
simile  is  evidently  founded  on  the  attempt  to  render  these  two 
similes  more  homogeneous  ;  for,  according  to  the  view  of  Luke,  the 
New  Testament,  as  the  new  cloak,  would  be  contrasted  with  the  Old 
Testament ;  but  for  this  very  reason  the  representation  of  Matthew 
and  Mark  is  to  be  preferred  ;  the  account  of  Luke  appears  to  be 
somewhat  modified.  (The  reading  dnb  l^ariov  icaivov  oxiaa$  in  the 
text  of  Luke  is  no  doubt  genuine  ;  it  was  perhaps  omitted  only  in 
order  to  assimilate  the  narrative  of  Luke  to  the  description  given 
by  the  other  two  Evangelists.)  In  the  second  simile,  the  rela- 
tion subsisting  between  substance  and  form,  as  viewed  from  the 
New  Testament  standing-point,  is  brought  prominently  forward ; 
by  its  innate  creative  power,  the  substance  must  produce  a  form 
analogous  to  its  own  character ;  wherever  human  self-will  should 
attempt  to  shut  up  the  spirit  into  the  old  form,  the  immediate 
result  will  be  the  breaking  of  the  form,  while,  at  the  same  time, 
the  substance  also  will  not  be  able  to  manifest  itself  in  a  regular 
way  ;  its  innate  power  will  indeed  shew  itself,  but  only  in  irregular 
phenomena,  which  are  by  no  means,  advantageous  to  the  whole. 
The  simile  is  as  simple  and  intelligible  as  it  is  wonderfully  profound, 
and  fraught  with  a  beautiful  meaning.  Especially  the  comparison  of 
the  principle  of  evangelical  life  with  the  most  spiritual  production  of 
nature  suggests  many  ideas.  (The  doicoi,  utres,  according  to  eastern 
custom,  skins  smeared  with  pitch  on  the  inside,  were  used  for  the  pre- 
servation of  wines  ;  this  kind  of  vessel  was  very  convenient  for 
transportation  on  asses  and  camels.)  Luke  adds  (v.  39)  another 
very  characteristic  feature  which  relates  to  the  Pharisees.  The 
gracious  Saviour  himself  finds  an  apology  for  hearts  long  habituated 
to  the  old,  and  sees  nothing  unreasonable  in  their  stepping  slowly 
and  reluctantly  out  of  the  sphere  of  their  old  religous  customs,  and 


384  MATTHEW  IX.  17, 18. 

venturing  into  a  hew  and  heaving  element  of  life.  The  Old,  al- 
though in  itself  more  rigid  (as  is  the  Old  Testament  compared 
with  the  New),  becomes  more  pleasant  through  the  influence  of 
habit ;  the  New,  the  wine  yet  fermenting  and  foaming,  we  at  first 
(ei>0ewf)  do  not  relish.  Yet,  this  very  expression  gently  invites 
us  to  enter  into  the  new  spiritual  life  which  the  Kedeemer  brought 
to  mankind. 


§  13.  HEALING  OF  THE  WOMAN  WITH  THE  ISSUE  OP  BLOOD. 
RAISING  FROM  DEATH  THE  DAUGHTER  OF  JAIRUS. 

(Matt  ix.  18-26;  Mark  v.  22-43;  Luke  viil  40-55.) 

After  recording  these  conversations  at  the  feast  given  in  his  own 
house,  Matthew  proceeds  to  set  forth  Jesus  as  a  worker  of  miracles. 
Storr  (Evang.  Gesch.  des  Job.  S.  303)  is  no  doubt  right  in  saying 
that  Matthew  has  here  (up  to  v.  35)  brought  together  what  occurred 
in  his  own  house,  and  before  his  own  eyes.  With  regard  to  the 
chronology,  therefore,  we  must  here  unhesitatingly  follow  Matthew, 
inasmuch  as  the  other  two  Evangelists,  pass  immediately,  by  indefi- 
nite formulas,  from  the  above  comparisons  to  other  events.  (Comp. 
Mark  ii.  23  ;  Luke  ii.  1.)  It  must  indeed  appear  strange  that  Mat- 
thew should  describe,  in  a  manner  so  little  graphic,  the  very  events 
which  occurred  immediately  after  his  calling,  and  in  his  own  imme- 
diate presence  ;  while  both  Mark  and  Luke  present  them  in  a  form 
so  striking  and  picturesque.  True,  the  features  which  they  add  to 
the  narrative  are,  as  usual,  to  some  extent,  unessential ;  for  in- 
stance, the  name  of  the  ruler,  the  age  of  the  damsel,  the  circum- 
stance of  the  woman  suffering  from  the  issue  of  blood  having 
sought  aid  from  physicians.  But  there  are  other  traits  more  essen- 
tial to  the  narrative,  as,  for  instance,  the  sending  of  messengers  to 
inform  Jairus  of  the  death  of  his  child,  and  the  notice  that  Jesus 
perceived  that  virtue  had  gone  out  of  him.  We  can,  therefore,  even 
here,  not  mistake  the  fact  that  Matthew  writes  without  precision, 
and  apparently  not  as  an  eye-witness  ;  the  question  only  is,  whether 
this  fact  entitles  us  to  infer  that  Matthew  is  not  the  author  of  the 
gospel.  All  that  can  with  safety  be  drawn  from  this  circumstance, 
is  a  want  of  clearness  and  liveliness  in  his  narrative,  and  a  limited 
power  of  conceiving  external  circumstances.  But  all  this  may  very 
well  consort  with  the  character  of  an  apostle,  for  whom  not  genius, 
but  spirituality  of  mind  is  requisite.  Matthew,  moreover,  did  not 
lay  himself  out  specially  to  notice  extraneous  circumstances,  as 
did  Mark.  Finally  in  both  the  narratives  contained  in  this 
section,  our  Redeemer  again  appears  as  a  messenger  from  heaven, 


MATTHEW  IX.  18-20.  385 

such  as  mankind,  in  their  most  secret  longings,  sigh  for  as  their 
ideal.  With  the  holiest,  purest  purposes  of  love,  he  combines  a 
fulness  of  divine  energy  which,  in  a  life-giving  stream  is  poured  out 
over  the  moral  wastes  through  which  he  passes.  Raised  above  all 
miseries  and  necessities,  he  does  not  withdraw  from  them,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  he  lovingly  descends  into  the  depths  of  wretchedness, 
swallows  up  for  ever  death  and  sin,  and  wipes  away  the  tears  from 
the  faces  of  the  poor.  (Isaiah  xxv.  8.)  Such  a  Saviour  the  Pro- 
phets had  prayed  for  with  ardent  desire,  and,  with  confident  hope, 
had  promised  at  the  command  of  the  Spirit ; — and  hi  the  New  Tes- 
tament we  see  him  rule  thus,  God  and  man  at  the  same  tune — in- 
comparable, and  attracting  to  himself,  with  a  magic  power,  all  hearts 
susceptible  of  noble  impressions.  He  is  truly  the  Saviour  of  his 
body— the  church  !  (Eph.  v.  23.) 

Matthew,  ix.  18,  brings  what  follows  into  direct  connexion  with 
what  precedes  by  the  words  ravra  avrov  hakovvros  avrolg,  while  he 
was  speaking  to  them  these  things.  ("Ap^aw  is  here  =  apxuv  rfy 
avvaycjyfjs  [Luke  viii.  41],  or  dp^wrwayaryof  [Mark  v.  22],  i.  e., 
the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  who  presided  over  the  meetings,  »KI 
nosarr. — Instead  of  doeWuv,  no  doubt  d<;  eWuv  must  be  read,  as  Mat- 
thew frequently  uses  el?  for  rig  [viii.  19  ;  xvi.  14  ;  xviii.  28  ;  TJ*. 
16],  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  term  -mx  and  the 
Aram,  term  th. — The  name  'Ideipog  is  =  i^;,  Numb,  xxxii.  41 ; 
Deut.  iii.  14.)  According  to  Matthew,  Jairus,  at  the  outset,  de- 
clares the  damsel  already  dead  ;  while  according  to  Luke  and  Mark, 
this  announcement  is  made  by  messengers  at  a  later  period.  But, 
precisely  because  Matthew  wished  to  omit  this  circumstance,  he  was 
obliged  at  once  to  bring  forward  the  event  as  completed :  the  child  was 
dying  when  her  father  hastened  to  Jesus  to  seek  for  aid.  Others  think 
that  experiments  were  still  being  made  for  the  purpose  of  reviving 
her  ;  in  which  case,  the  message  of  the  servants  would  refer  to  the 
futility  of  these  attempts.  Luke  viii.  42,  observes  incidentally,  that 
the  child  was  twelve  years  of  age,  and  the  only  daughter  of  the 
ruler.  (Movoyev^  is  to  be  understood  as  in  Luke  vii.  12.) 

Ver.  19. — The  disciples  went  with  our  Lord,  who  obeyed  the  call 
of  the  agonized  father,  and  both  Mark  and  Luke  depict  the  scene, 
by  stating  that  a  crowd  of  people  followed  and  thronged  Jesus 
(Mark  v.  24,  ovviQXiflov ;  Luke  viii.  42,  OVVKTTVIJOV.)  Rudeness,  cu- 
riosity, and  kind-heartedness,  were  mixed  together  .in  the  motley 
crowd  ;  Jesus  bore  with  them  all. 

Ver.  20. — There  now  pressed  forward  a  woman  diseased  with  an 
issue  of  blood  ;  she  had  suffered  for  twelve  years,  had  employed 
physicians  and  human  aid,  but  all  in  vain  ;  her  disease  had  even 
rendered  her  poor.  (The  term  da-rravaG)  of  Mark  is  =  TrpooavaMatcw 
of  Luke,  and  signifies  "  to  expend,"  with  the  accessory  notion  of 

VOL.  I.— 25 


386  MATTHEW  IX.  20. 

"  spending  in  vain."  ftiog  [Luke  viii.  43]  =  opes,  facultates,  means 
of  living,  as  in  Luke  xv.  12,  30  ;  xxi.  4.)  She  appears  as  one  utterly 
destitute  of  comfort,  and  of  hope  from  human  aid,  in  her  extreme 
distress.  The  faith  of  the  woman  was  great,  but  yet  she  imagined 
that,  at  all  events,  she  required  an  actual  touch  in  order  to  be 
healed  ;  she  came  behind  Jesus  that  she  might  touch  the  hem  ot 
his  garment.  Unlike  that  centurion  so  strong  in  the  faith  (Matt, 
viii.  8),  she  did  not  know  that  the  power  of  Jesus  was  efficacious 
even  afar  of.  False  modesty  also  may,  perhaps,  have  prevented  the 
sufferer  from  disclosing  herself  to  Jesus  ;  she  hoped  to  obtain  aid 
though  she  were  only  to  touch  his  garment.  She  evidently  enter- 
tained the  idea  of  a  sacred  atmosphere  encircling  the  heavenly  visi- 
tant, into  which  she  must  strive  to  enter.  The  garment  she  con- 
sidered to  be  the  conductor  of  the  power.  (Comp.  Matt.  xiv.  36.) 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  notions  of  the  woman  were  free  from  a  ma- 
terialistic view  of  the  miraculous  power  of  Jesus  ;  but,  happily, 
she  was  to  be  cured,  not  by  the  imaginations  of  her  head,  but 
by  the  faith  of  her  heart ;  and  this  was  ardent,  and  well  pleasing  to 
the  Lord.  (Kpdciredov  —  naps,  Numb.  xv.  38 ;  Deut.  xxii.  12.) 
(Comp.  the  remarks  on  Matt,  xxiii.  5.)  Mark  and  Luke  alone  de- 
scribe explicitly  the  effect  of  this  believing  touch,  and  that  which 
was  consequent  upon  it.  Mark  v.  29,  makes  use  of  the  significant 
expression  efypdvdrj  r\  irrfyr)  rov  alparog,  the  fountain  of  blood  was 
dried  up,  to  signify  a  radical  cure  of  the  deep-rooted  disease  ;  and 
adds,  £yvo)  ~a>  oufian,  she  perceived  in  her  body,  to  shew  that  she 
experiened  a  peculiar  bodily  sensation  which  gave  her  the  convic- 
tion that  the  malady  was  removed.  (Mewm|  sc.  rov  Qeov ;  comp.  2 
Maccab.  ix.  11.  Every  disease  is,  rightly  understood,  the  conse- 
quence of  sin,  and  hence,  also,  a  punishment  of  God,  which  is  in- 
tended to  lead  to  a  knowledge  of  sin.  Comp.  the  commentary  on 
Matt.  ix.  2.)  But  with  this,  both  the  Evangelists  connect  an  ac- 
count of  the  conduct  of  Jesus  towards  the  healed  woman,  which  is 
altogether  peculiar.  Mark  v.  30,  observes  that  Jesus  had  perceived 
that  virtue  had  gone  out  of  htm  ;  Luke  viii.  46,  adds  an  explana- 
tion that  Jesus  himself  uttered  the  words,  eyvwv  6vvap.iv  e&Xdovoav 
far'  eftotJ.  The  disciples,  in  their  want  of  spiritual  discernment, 
imagined  that  the  question  of  Jesus  was  occasioned  by  the  pressure 
'  of  the  people,  and  wondered  at  the  conduct  of  Christ,  but  he  looked 
around  him  with  a  searching  eye  (-rrepte^sTrero,  Mark  v.  32),  and  the 
woman,  feeling  that  she  was  discovered,  approached  and  confessed, 
61  r)v  airiav  ifijiaro  avrov,  for  what  cause,  ect,  and  did  so  before  all 
the  people,  as  Luke  ver.  47,  very  significantly  adds.  What  strikes 
us  in  this  description  is,  that  Jesus  makes  use  of  the  expression  6v*>afu<; 
tt-eXOovaa  air'  efj.ov,  power  going  from,  etc.  From  this,  the  notion  im- 
perceptibly begins  to  arise,  that  the  power  has  wrought  by  a  process 


MATTHEW  IX.  20.  387 

involuntary  on  the  part  of  Christ — a  supposition  unsuited  to  the 
transaction.  The  words  in  themselves,  however,  evidently  do  not 
imply  that  the  virtue  emanated  from  Christ  involuntarily ;  but 
we  can  have  as  little  hesitation  in  admitting  that  virtue  really  pro- 
ceeded from  Christ,  as  in  admitting  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  that 
the  Spirit  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  is  poured 
out  into  the  hearts  of  believers.  The  fulness  of  spiritual  life  which 
our  Redeemer  had  in  himself,  manifested  itself,  as  it  is  the  nature 
of  the  Spirit  to  do,  in  its  creative  and  curative  character  ;  and  that 
is  expressed  in  the  words  dvvafiig  tt-epxerai,  power  goeth  forth,  as  the 
radiance  of  fire  beams  forth  light  and  warmth.* 

On  the  other  hand,  this  significant  mode  of  expression  contrasts 
strikingly  with  that  empty  view,  according  to  which  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  cured  and  operated  without  the  pouring  forth  of  virtue.  But 
the  view  that  the  efficacious  working  of  Christ  took  place,  in  this 
case,  involuntarily,  seems  to  be  favoured  by  the  question,  "  Who 
has  touched  me  ?"  when  connected  with  the  passage,  "  I  felt  that 
power  went  out  of  me."  If  Christ,  indeed,  did  not  know  that, 
and  whom  he  was  curing,  the  whole  transaction  appears  magical 
and  unworthy  of  the  Lord.  Each  of  his  cures  must  be  considered 
as  an  action  of  which  he  was  conscious,  and  which  stood  in  close 
connexion  with  the  person  to  be  healed,  and  with  his  moral  con- 
dition. And  this  feature  will  become  apparent  even  in  the  case  be- 
fore us,  if  we  look  to  the  following  considerations  : — Her  moral  cure 
was  the  very  circumstance  which  induced  our  Lord  to  draw  her 
from  her  concealment  into  the  light,  for  he  had  recognized  her 
timid  faith,  and  did  not  wish  that  she  should  be  put  to  shame. 
Without  addressing  her,  he  compels  her  to  come  forward  spontane- 
ously, and  to  overcome  the  false  modesty  which  had  prevented  her 
from  coming  freely  and  openly  before  our  Lord,  and  laying  her  ne- 
cessitous case  before  him.  Though  even  her  secret  approach  to  the 
Lord  for  the  purpose  of  touching  his  garment,  undoubtedly  exhibits1 
faith,  yet  her  mode  of  procedure  was  not  altogether  pure  and  single- 
minded  ;  fear  of  man,  and  false  timidity,  were  at  the  foundation  of 
it,  and  had,  as  yet,  to  be  overcome.  Now,  it  would  have  been  too 
hard  to  have  required  her,  before  her  cure,  to  speak  openly  in  the 
presence  of  the  people.  Our  gracious  Lord,  therefore,  softened  the 
difficulty  by  making  this  demand  subsequent  to  the  cure,  and  this 
helped  her  along  the  narrow  way.  But  from  the  act  itself  he  could 
not  altogether  free  her,  as  it  was  subservient  to  her  spiritual  birth, 
and  to  the  new  life.  We  thus  gain  the  true  moral  standing-point, 

*  Hence  it  is  that  passages  like  Matt.  xiv.  36  ;  Mark  iii.  10,  vi.  56;  Luke  yi.  19,  in 
which  we  are  told  that  many  people  supplicated  Jesus  to  be  permitted  to  touch  his  gar- 
ment, and  that  they  were  healed,  offer  no  peculiar  difficulties,  because  the  cures  plain)— 
appear  to  be  actions  of  his  will. 


888  MATTHEW  IX.  20-23. 

and  perceive  in  Christ  every  thing  well  considered  and  ordered  for 
man's  temporal  and  eternal  welfare,  according  to  the  measure  of  his 
infinite  love.  Only  one  question  more  may  be  asked,  viz.,  whether  it 
was  not  substantially  an  untruth  to  ask,  "  Who  is  it  that  touched 
me  ?"  if  he  knew  that  it  was  she.  But  if  we  consider  that  Christ 
only  wished  to  bring  her  to  a  confession,  and  that  any  dissembling 
of  his  knowledge  of  her  is  utterly  out  of  the  question,  we  can  no  more 
find  in  this  a  stumbling-block,  than  in  the  case  of  a  father  who 
should  put  to  the  entire  number  of  his  children  the  question — Who 
has  done  this  ?  well  knowing  the  guilty  one,  yet  desirous  of  ob- 
taining the  free  confession  of  his  guilt.* 

Ver.  22. — After  this  victory  of  the  woman  over  her  old  nature,  it 
was  now  time  to  comfort  her,  and  to  foster  the  faith  which  had  at 
first  manifested  itself  but  timidly.  In  the  process  of  healing,  the 
the  power  of  Christ  appears  as  the  efficient  cause,  and  the  faith  of 
the  woman  as  the  essential  condition  ;  both  combined  to  complete 
the  work.  Our  Lord  gave  her  peace  not  in  words  only,  but  in  its 
substantial  spiritual  effects. 

Mark  and  Luke  continue  to  report  what  turn  the  events  took 
whilst  Jesus  was  going  to  the  house  of  Jairus.  There  came  messen- 
gers (aTTo  rov  dp%iovvayu>yov  sc.  dovXoC)  announcing  the  death  of  the 
child  (compare  the  remarks  above  on  Matth.  ix.  18),  and  requesting 
that  Jesus  might  not  be  farther  troubled.  The  Kedeemer  comforts 
the  trembling  father,  wavering  in  his  faith,  and  arrives  at  length  at 
the  house.  Both  the  narrators  here  mention,  by  way  of  anticipa- 
tion, that  Christ  took  in  with  him  only  certain  persons.  Matthew, 
with  greater  care,  mentions  it  once  more  in  its  proper  place,  in  the 
40th  verse. 

Ver.  23. — According  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  who  rapidly 
hastened  on  their  funerals,  Jesus  already  found  funeral  music  (avhr)- 
Tot),  and  howling  (Mark  has  aAaAa£«v),  and  wailing  (Ko-rrreodat,  pec- 
tus  plangere  =  lugere)  people  before  the  house.  The  Eedeemer  in- 
terrupted their  noise  with  the  words,  ova  direOave  rb  nopdoiov,  the 
maiden  is  not  dead,  without  giving  heed  to  their  mocking.  This 
declaration  of  Christ  is  so  simple  and  plain,  that  no  one  ought  ever 
to  have  tampered  with  it.f 

*  According  to  Euseb.  H.  E.  viii.  18,  there  was  set  up  in  Caesarea  Paneas,  cast  in 
bronze,  the  statue  of  Christ,  with  the  woman  suffering  from  the  issue  of  blood,  in  the  act 
of  touching  his  garment.  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the  veracity  of  this  narrative,  in- 
asmuch as  the  fact  is,  in  itself,  anything  but  improbable. 

f  Christ  will  not  have  the  raising  of  the  dead,  as  such,  to  be  openly  and  immediately 
known,  and  thus  his  reputation  with  the  unconverted  multitude  increased.  (Comp.  Mark 
T.  23  ;  Luke  viii.  66) :  hence  he  speaks  to  the  mass  of  mourning  women  and  musicians 
the  enigmatical  words,  "  the  child  sleepeth,  she  is  not  dead."  The  less  discerning  among 
the  crowd  would  misunderstand  his  language,  and  suppose  that  he  had  performed  not  a 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  but  a  miraculous  cure :  yet  was  the  child  so  manifestly  dead 


MATTHEW  IX.  23.  389 

The  miracles  of  our  Lord  need  no  adjuncts  from  human  hands  ; 
the  very  absence  of  ostentation  adds  to  their  grandeur.  The  addi- 
tion, "but  sleepeth,"  does  not  permit  us  to  understand  the  first  ex- 
pression, as  if  it  meant  "  she  is  not  dead,  because  I  have  the  inten- 
tion of  raising  her,  or,  inasmuch  as  what  I  intend  to  do  must  be 
regarded  as  already  accomplished."  The  contrast,  "  she  is  not  dead, 
but  sleepeth,"  which  all  the  three  Evangelists  repeat  verbatim,  ad- 
mits of  no  prevarication.  We  have  here,  consequently,  no  raising 
from  the  dead  in  the  true  sense  of  the  words.  It  is  likely  that  the 
child  was  in  a  deep  trance  ;*  but  viewed  even  in  this  light,  the  act 
performed  by  our  Lord  is  not  less  significant.  He  presents  himself, 
in  such  a  plain  declaration,  in  the  purest  moral  grandeur.  The  real 
moment  of  death,  which  man  can  never  ascertain,  is  perfectly  known 
to  Jesus  ;  and  of  this  he  declares  that  it  has  not  yet  arrived  ;  but 
the  very  circumstance  that  he  knew  this — that  he  knew  it  before  he 
came — that  he  knew  how  to  fix  the  time  and  circumstances — all 
these  constitute  the  miraculous  part  of  this  act.  What  was  un- 
known to  all  of  them  (Luke  viii.  53  has  the  words  ddors.^  on  a-niQa- 
vev,  knowing  that  she  was  dead,  because  they  had  tried  every  means 
to  restore  her)  he  knew,  without  having  even  seen  the  child  ;  and 
he  openly  declared  what  he  knew,  and  produced  thereby  life  and 
faith.  His  miracle  was  not  diminished,  by  this  open  declaration,  in 
the  eyes  of  those  present,  but  was,  on  the  contrary,  rendered  great 
and  glorious.  (Mark  v.  42  ;  Luke  xiii.  56.)  Having  here  again  in 
view  the  moral  impression,  Jesus  collected  from  among  the  rude 
mass  (who  are  as  prone  to  mockery  as  to  stupid  amazement)  a  small 
number  of  susceptible  souls  ;  to  them  he  permitted  the  undisturbed 
enjoyment  of  beholding  the  returning  life  of  the  damsel,  in  all  its 
manifestations,  in  order  that  thereby  they  might  be  excited  to  solemn 
and  sacred  thankfulness  to  God.  This  impression,  however,  our 

that  they  laughed  Jesus  to  scorn,  and  it  was  at  most  not  until  after  they  saw  the  child 
living  and  healed  that  they  could  become  doubtful  whether  the  death  had  been  a  real  or 
only  apparent  one.  The  enlightened  must  have  recognized  in  the  words  of  Jesus  the 
meaning  that  for  him  and  his  power  death  was  but  a  sleep,  and  that  for  these  mourning 
women  there  is  at  hand  no  dead  body  to  be  the  object  of  their  wailings,  but  a  sleeping 
child,  that  is  on  the  point  of  being  awakened. — [E.  That  Ebrard  is  right  as  to  the/oc< 
I  cannot  doubt.  His  correctness  in  assigning  the  cause  of  the  Saviour's  language,  is  more 
questionable.  It  seems  clear  that  the  Evangelists  intend  to  describe  a  raising  from  the 
dead ;  and  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  interpreted  according  to  his  ordinary  modes  of  speech, 
interpose  no  difficulty  to  this  view.  Strictly  speaking,  she  was  dead,  but  viewed  with  re- 
ference to  the  result  she  was  only  asleep.  There  was  one  present  to  whom  her  death  was 
the  same  as  the  state  of  sleep,  and  this  is  expressed  in  the  Saviour's  sharp  and  terse  man- 
lier by  the  language,  "  She  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth." — [K. 

*  Physicians  distinguish  syncope  from  asphyxia;  by  the  latter  they  understand  the 
suspension  of  all  the  vital  functions;  and  it  is  this  which  must  here  be  supposed.  The 
history  of  Eutychus  (Acts  xx.  7,  seq.)  is  quite  similar  to  this.  Of  the  youth  mentioned 
Paul  says,  7)  Tpvx?/  avrov  h  avru  EGTLV.  which  words  explain  the  expressions  enearpe^e  rd 
in  our  narrative  (Luke  viii.  55.) 


390  MATTHEW  IX.  23-27. 

Lord  commanded  them  to  conceal  in  the  depths  of  their  souls,  lest, 
by  their  busy  talkativeness,  they  should  immediately  destroy  again 
the  slight  spark  of  life  which  was  but  just  enkindled.  (Mark  v.  43  ; 
Luke  viii.  56.  Comp.  also  the  remarks  on  Matth.  viii.  4.)  Mark 
with  still  greater  care,  reports  what  happened  in  presence  of  the 
parents,  and  of  Peter,  John,  and  James.  (Concerning  the  presence, 
on  many  occasions,  of  these  three  apostles  only,  compare  the  re- 
marks on  Matth.  x.  2.)  Jesus  seized  the  hand  of  the  damsel  and 
called,  •>»!•;?  si^Vta.  (The  substantive  is  the  Syriac  form  of  n^ts,  which 
properly  signifies  "  lamb,"  but  is  frequently  used  of  children  also.) 
It  may  be  best  to  consider  here  the  call  of  Christ,  his  life-giving 
word,  as  the  means  of  resuscitation.  Not  the  slightest  mention  is 
made  of  the  application  of  any  other  means,  and  there  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  such  were  used,  though  it  is  not  absolutely  im- 
possible that  such  should  have  been  employed,  inasmuch  as  Jesus, 
upon  other  occasions,  makes  use  of  such  means.  (Comp.  the  remarks 
on  Mark  vii.  23.)  But  just  because  everything  is  recorded  in  a  plain 
and  straight-forward  manner,  and  in  its  proper  place,  it  is  as  natural 
to  suppose  that,  where  no  such  thing  is  spoken  of,  it  did  not  take 
place.  Christ  and  the  apostles,  who  were  free  from  all  charlatanry, 
represent  the  most  wonderful  occurrences  in  the  plainest  and  sim- 
plest manner  ;  and  as  our  Lord,  after  having  fed  thousands  with  a 
few  loaves,  yet,  in  strict  accordance  with  human  nature,  gives  orders 
to  gather  carefully  the  fragments  that  remained  ;  so  also  he,  who 
himself  is  the  life,  and  who  hereafter  shall  awaken  all  the  dead  by 
his  voice  (John  v.  25),  orders  that  the  little  child,  whom  he  had 
awakened  from  her  trance,  and  whom  he  declares  not  to  have  been 
dead,  should  be  supplied  with  food.  (Mark  v.  43  ;  Luke  viii.  55.) 
He  thus  permits  everything  to  go  on  in  a  natural  and  simple  way, 
and  manifests  thereby  a  truth  of  the  inner  life  which  forms,  in  a 
peculiar  manner,  the  true  foil  to  his  great  actions. 

§  14.  HEALING  OF  Two  BLIND  MEN  AND  OF  A  DUMB  MAN. 

(Matth.  ix.  27-34.) 

Matthew  alone  relates  that,  during  the  time  which  Jesus  spent 
in  his  house,  he  healed  therein  two  blind  men,  and  a  dumb  man. 
The  words,  avr&v  6e  efrpxopevuv  I6ov  K.  r.  A.,  and  as  they  came  out, 
etc,  (ver.  32),  connect  immediately  the  healing  of  the  dumb  man 
with  that  of  the  blind  men.  The  similar  narrative  in  Matthew,  xi. 
22,  seq.,  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  different  event.  The  ac- 
cusation of  the  Pharisees,  iv  roS  ap^ovn  r&v  daipoviuv  t-/c/MAA«  ra 
daipovia,  he  castetli  out  devils  by  the  prince,  etc.,  will,  when  that  pas- 
sage is  under  consideration,  be  subjected  to  more  special  inquiry. 


MATTHEW  IX.  27-35.  391 

As  the  narratives  of  the  two  cures  here  effected  offer  no  difficulty 
which  are  not  solved  by  the  remarks  previously  made,  one  circum- 
stance only  need  be  mentioned,  viz.,  that  the  K(*)(f>bg  dai^ovi^ofj^vo^, 
dumb  de?nonaic,  verse  32,  must  be  distinguished  from  a  dumb  man 
suffering  from  organic  imperfection.  The  former  is  dumb  through 
demoniacal  influence.  This,  no  doubt,  must  have  assumed  the  form 
of  a  kind  of  mania,  which  must  not,  however,  be  viewed  as  imagi- 
nary, but  as  the  consequence  of  the  agency  of  hostile  powers.  Their 
being  overcome  by  the  light-giving  power  of  the  Redeemer,  restores 
in  the  sufferer  the  right  psychical  and  physical  relations.  This 
scriptural  mode  of  viewing  things,  which  ascribes  real  effects  to  real 
causes,  and  which,  specially,  never  admits  psychical  phenomena 
without  spiritual  or  demoniacal  influence,  appears  equally  simple 
and  profound. 


§  15.  THE  SENDING  FORTH  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

(Matth.  ix.  35  ;  x.  42 ;  Mark  vi.  7-11 ;  Luke  ix.  1-5.) 

After  having  represented  Jesus  in  chapters  viii.,  ix.  as  a  worker 
of  miracles,  Matthew  gives,  in  chap.  x.  a  series  of  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses, put  together  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  He  opens  it  by  a  transition,  expressed  in  general  terms, 
such  as  we  have  already  met  with  in  Matthew  iv.  23,  et  seq.  He 
remarks  that  Jesus  went  about  teaching  and  healing.  We  find  in 
this  passage  no  limitation  to  Galilee.  The  words  of  Matthew  are, 
on  the  contrary,  so  general,  that  it  is  clear  that  he  did  not  at  all  in- 
tend to  fix  the  localities.  But  then  the  Evangelist  sets  forth  how 
the  immediate  perception  of  the  condition  of  the  people,  which  our 
Redeemer  obtained  in  his  wanderings,  excited  in  him  the  most  heart- 
felt compassion  for  the  miserable  situation  of  the  people  of  God  ; 
and  it  was  this  which  formed  the  motive  for  his  sending  forth  of  the 
disciples.  (Concerning  oTrkayxvifrodai,  compare  the  remarks  on 
Luke  i.  78.  Its  real  and  primary  meaning  is  maternal  compassion 
for  the  helpless  child.  Instead  of  the  more  common  word  t/cAeAv/zevo* 
— iftMeaQai,  used  of  the  failing  and  exhaustion  of  all  strength,  Gal. 
vi.  9,  Heb.  xii.  3,  the  less  frequently  used  expression  eonvtyevoi 
should,  no  doubt,  be  received  in  the  text,  as  is  done  by  Griesbach: 
"  Worn  out  by  the  cares  of  life,  and  scattered  [epp^eVot]  by  wolves 
like  sheep  without  a  shepherd."  Concerning  this  figure,  compare 
the  remarks  on  John  x.  3,  et  seq.)  The  general  idea  connected  with 
this,  6  /zt-v  depiofibs  TToAvj-  «.  r.  A.,  the  harvest  indeed,  etc.,  stands  in 
Luke,  x.  2,  in  a  more  close  and  definite  connexion,  as  spoken  on  the 
occasion  of  the  sending  forth  of  the  seventy  disciples  ;  for  which 


392  MATTHEW  IX.  35. 

reason  we  refer  to  our  remarks  on  that  passage.  Matthew  intro- 
duces it  here,  only  because  it  indicates  the  prevailing  disposition  of 
the  Saviour's  soul  ;  from  this  proceeded  the  sending  forth  of  the 
twelve  apostles,  which  stands  in  immediate  connexion  with  it. 
The  thought  indicates  the  character  of  the  time  and  of  the 
people  ;  their  preparation  for  the  reception  of  the  divine  doctrines  ; 
and  their  need  of  such  teachers,  as  could  effectually  supply  their 
true  wants. 

The  body  of  the  twelve  apostles  is  here  evidently  assumed  as 
already  existing  ;  of  its  formation  the  Evangelist  reports  as  little  as 
of  the  calling  of  the  individuals  singly,  if  we  except  the  fragmentary 
notices  in  chap.  iv.  18,  et  seq.  Mark  and  Luke  appear  here  like- 
wise more  exact  in  their  statements.  They  connect  with  the  list  of 
the  apostles,  the  remark  that  Christ  had  expressly  chosen  and  in- 
stalled them  as  a  body.  (Mark  iii.  14,  nal  iTroirjoe  d&dena,  iva  uot  fier' 
avrov.  Luke  (vi.  13)  is  yet  more  definite,  •npoae^vrjae  TOV? 
avTov,  teal  en^e^d/JLevog  arc'  avr&v  duide.na,  ov$  nal  aTroCTroAovf*  u 
Luke  gives  prominence  only  to  the  significancy  of  their  installation. 
He  remarks,  chap.  vi.  12,  "he  went  forth  into  the  mountain  to  pray, 
and  spent  the  night  in  prayer  to  God"  [^ijkdev  (6  'Irj<jov(f)  d$  rb  opoq 
npoaev&adai.,  real  TJV  diavvKrepevuv  EV  ry  rcpoaev^y  rov  Oeot>].  It  would 
appear  then  that  our  Kedeemer  prepared  himself  by  a  night  spent 
in  prayer,  and  in  the  morning  installed  the  twelve  apostles.  If  we 
consider  that,  in  the  election  of  this  body  of  men,  in  whose  hearts 
the  first  germs  of  truth  were  to  be  deposited,  everything  depended 
upon  a  right  selection  of  persons,  we  shall  estimate  the  importance 
of  the  moment.  It  was  a  moment  in  which  the  foundation-stone 
of  the  church  was  laid.  The  twelve  apostles,  as  the  representatives 
of  spiritual  Israel,  f  were  to  form  among  themselves  a  complete 
unity  ;  it  was  therefore  necessary  that  in  their  fundamental  disposi- 
tions they  should  mutually  supplement  each  other,  and  carry  within 
themselves  the  germ  of  all  the  various  tendencies  which  on  a  larger 
scale  afterwards  manifested  themselves  in  the  church.  It  is  only 
as  a  discerner  of  hearts  (John  ii.  25)  that  the  Lord  was  enabled  to 
establish  such  a  band  of  closely  united  spirits,  who  were  to  stand  as 
the  representatives  of  the  whole  spiritual  creation  which  was  to  be 
called  into  existence.  In  himself,  everything  was  united  in  a  holy 
unity  ;  but,  as  the  ray  divides  itself  into  its  colours,  so  that  one 
light  which  beamed  forth  from  Christ  fell,  in  variously  modified 


*  The  term  airoaTuhof  appears  here  as  a  real  official  title  of  the  twelve.  (Con- 
cerning the  relation  of  this  term  to  similar  expressions,  compare  the  comment,  on  1  Cor. 
xii.  28.) 

f  This  is  figuratively  represented  in  Rev.  xxi.  14.  The  twelve  apostles,  as  distinct 
from  Paul,  seem  likewise  to  have  had  a  special  reference  to  Israel  after  the  flesh.  (Com- 
pare the  remarks  on  Matth.  x.  5,  6,  and  the  Introduction  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul.) 


MATTHEW  IX.  35.  393 

splendour,  upon  the  hearts  of  his  twelve  apostles.  Thus  alone  was 
it  possible,  that,  through  this  medium,  not  only  a  few  men,  but  all, 
according  to  their  wants  and  dispositions,  might  be  equally  satisfied 
by  the  Gospel.  A  striking  feature  in  this  election  of  the  twelve  is, 
that  Judas  Iscariot,*  the  betrayer  of  the  Lord,  was  admitted  into 
this  narrow  circle.  But  faith  perceives  even  in  this  a  wonderful, 
gracious  dispensation  of  our  Lord.  Evil  is  everywhere  entwined  and 
mixed  up  with  the  good,  that  it  may  be  overcome  by  the  redeeming 
power  of  Christ.  As  in  paradise  there  was  a  serpent,  and  in 
the  ark  a  Ham  was  saved,  so  must  there  be  a  Judas  among  the 
twelve,  if  their  circle  was  truly  to  represent  Israel.  Not  that  he  was 
predestinated  to  evil — Scripture  knows  no  reprobatio  impiorum 
(compare  Rom.  ix.) — but  in  order  to  give  him  occasion  for  over- 
coming, by  the  help  of  the  Lord,  the  evil  which  was  in  him.  True, 
the  unhappy  man,  as  he  did  not  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity, 
was  to  become  the  instrument  of  our  Lord's  betrayal ;  but  it  was  by 
no  means  his  destiny.  The  God  of  mercy  ordains  everywhere,  in 
the  present  order  of  things,  the  intermixture  of  good  and  evil,  that 
the  latter  may  be  overcome  by  the  former  ;  or,  if  it  will  not  be  over- 
come, to  consummate  the  good  by  collision  with  the  evil.  For  al- 
though Judas  brings  our  Lord  to  the  cross,  yet  by  this  very  act  he 
aids  in  procuring  an  everlasting  redemption. 

Of  the  first  sending  forth  of  the  twelve  apostles,  which  happened 
under  the  eye  of  the  Lord  himself,  both  Mark  (vi.  7-11)  and  Luke 
(ix.  1-6)  give  an  account,  but  without  communicating  so  detailed 
instructions  as  does  Matthew  in  chap,  x.f  In  this  discourse  (chap. 
x.)  Matthew  evidently  unites  various  elements.  Luke  narrates  in 
chap.  x.  the*sending  forth  of  the  seventy  disciples,  on  which  subject 
Matthew  is  silent,  and  communicates,  on  this  occasion,  a  discourse 
of  Jesus  addressed  to  them.  This  discourse,  and  chap.  xi.  of  Luke, 
wherein  Christ  gives  special  admonitions  to  his  disciples,  contain 
many  elements  of  the  instructions  to  the  apostles,  communicated  by 
Matthew  in  chap.  x.  True,  there  is  nothing  in  Matthew  unsuitable 
to  the  occasion  ;  so  that,  in  this  respect,  we  might  unhesitatingly 
assume  that  Jesus  had  thus  spoken  ;  yet  it  is  not  probable,  since  in 
Luke  the  same  passages  stand  in  more  appropriate  connexion,  while 
in  Matthew,  the  connexion  of  the  separate  thoughts  is  often  but 
loose.  The  simplest  supposition  is  that  Matthew  intended  to  put 
together,  in  this  chapter,  the  principles  which  Jesus  impressed 

*  For  further  remarks  on  Judas  Iscariot  compare  the  comment,  on  Matth.  xxvL  24, 
and  John  xiii.  27. 

f  The  hypothesis  raised  by  Dr.  Paulus  (in  his  Commentary,  vol.  ii.,  p.  34),  that  Luke 
and  Mark  are  narrating  a  subsequent  mission  of  the  twelve  apostles,  has  originated  only 
from  the  attempt  to  bring  the  separate  evangelical  narratives  into  a  close  connexion  in 
point  of  time ;  but  it  is  altogether  void  of  internal  probability. 


394  MATTHEW  IX.  35;  X.  1. 

upon  his  apostles,  at  different  times,  concerning  their  relation  to  the 
world.  This  becomes  the  more  probable,  because  many  expressions 
occurring  in  the  instruction  (com.  specially  the  remarks  on  Matth. 
x.  23)  went  beyond  the  knowledge  which  the  apostles  had  at  the 
tune  when  they  were  sent  forth.  The  special  reference  of  the  in- 
struction to  the  impending  mission  of  the  twelve  has  assumed,  in 
the  hands  of  the  Evangelist,  a  general  character ;  so  that  in  this 
discourse  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  we  have  received  instruc- 
tions for  them  and  for  their  whole  apostolic  work,  nay,  for  all  the 
missionaries  of  all  times.  How  far  this  may  have  been  the  intention 
of  Matthew,  I  leave  undecided  ;*  but  the  Spirit,  who  spoke  through 
him,  has  given  that  rich  fulness  to  his  representation. 

Ver.  1. — Jesus  on  sending  out  the  twelve  apostles  by  two  and 
two  (Mark  vi  7),  for  their  mutual  assistance,  gives  to  them,  in  the 
first  place,  a  seal  of  their  official  authority,  viz.,  the  power  of  heal- 
ing (i^ovaia).  It  is  obvious  that  the  communication  of  such  power 
of  healing  could  only  be  by  a  communication  of  the  power  of  the 
Spirit.  Hence  we  find  in  this  passage  the  first  trace  of  a  communi- 
cation of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  which  is  increased  in 
John  xx.  22,  and  consummated  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  From 
this  also  comes  the  relation  in  which  the  miraculous  cures  of  the 
apostles  stood  to  their  other  ministrations.  The  outward  work  of 
healing  was  the  most  subordinate  and  the  first ;  their  purely  spirit- 
ual labours  in  preaching  the  word  they  could  begin  only  after  the 
Pentecost.  So  also  the  Saviour  began  by  healing  the  body ;  but 
afterward,  he  exercised  his  redeeming  power  by  healing  the  soul 
also.  It  is  therefore  no  great  loss  which  the  church  sustained,  if,  at 
a  subsequent  period,  the  gift  of  healing  departed  froln  her ;  the 
higher  gift,  the  word  by  which  souls  are  redeemed,  remained.  A 
remarkable  instance  of  such  communication  of  the  Spirit  to  others 
is  found  in  Numb.  xi.  17,  et  seq.,  where  it  is  related  how  Moses  laid 
upon  the  seventy  elders  of  Israel  the  Spirit  which  rested  upon  him- 
self. This  is  by  no  means  a  view  of  the  Spirit  bordering  on  ma- 
terialism, but  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  representation  of  him  in  his 
essential  nature.  As  God  is  love,  and,  as  being  love,  it  is  his  nature 
to  communicate  himself ;  so  it  is  also  the  nature  of  the  Spirit,  as  a 
divine  substance,  to  communicate  himself  unceasingly,  creating 
life,  and,  as  a  stream,  strengthening  and  refreshing  the  heart. 
A  Spirit  who  would  or  could  not  communicate  himself  would  be  no 
spirit,  or  not  a  divine  spirit.  Now  Christ,  as  the  image  of  the 
invisible  Father,  continually  pours  out  a  fulness  of  living  Spirit, 
but  communicates  to  every  one  according  to  his  wants  and  suscepti- 


*  Compare  on  this  point  my  "  Festprogramm  iiber  die  Aechtheit.  des  Mat.,"  Abth. 
ii,  S.  17. 


MATTHEW  X.  1,  2. 


395 


bilities.  As  Jesus  had  purposely  not  chosen  any  noble  or  learned 
disciples,  but  those  who  were  poor  and  despised  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world  (1  Cor.  i.  27),  they  needed  all  the  more  a  divine  power  to 
guide  them  in  the  discharge  of  their  functions.  This  power,  how- 
ever, was  to  act,  pure  and  undisturbed,  through  them,  as  pure 
organs  ;  and  the  less  their  minds  had  been  formed  by  human  influ- 
ences, the  more  they  were  fitted  to  become  such  instruments  of  the 
Spirit. 

Ver.  2. — Here  follows  the  list  of  the  apostles,  which,  for  the 
convenience  of  the  reader,  we  present,  together  with  the  other  lists 
of  the  same  (as  given  in  Mark  iii.  13,  et  seq.;  Luke  vi.  12,  et  seq.; 
and  Acts  i.  et  seq.),  in  the  form  of  a  comparative  table  : — 


MATTHEW. 


MAKK. 


LUKE.        ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 


1.  First  Class. 


11  2///WV  6  Kav. 

12  'loudac  'I<T/c. 


3  'luuvvrjf. 
* 


1  Ilerpof, 
2 


2.  Second  Glass. 


5 

6 

7  Mardalof. 
8 


3.  Third  Class. 


*  9u//af. 

7 

8 


9  'IaKW/3of  'AAf 

10  0a(5(5atof. 

11  I,i[iuv  6  Kav. 

'I<T/c. 


'lax. 


9  'IdfCW/Jof  'Aty. 

10  St^wv  (5  ZjfX 

'las. 


The  arrangement  observed  in  these  four  lists,  according  to  three 
classes,  is  so  similar,  that  it  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  had  an  ac- 
cidental origin  ;*  and  yet  they  so  differ  from  each  other,  that  we 
are  prevented  from  referring  them  to  one  written  source.  Hence  it 
is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  each  Evangelist  arranged  them  ac- 
cording to  their  importance,  as  acknowledged  by  the  universal 
consent  of  the  church.  Those  who  were  less  known  and  influential 
had  the  last  place  assigned  to  them  ;  those  who  were  best  known 
had  the  first.  Slight  modifications,  of  course  took  place  in  this  ar- 

*  All  agree  as  to  the  place  of  Peter,  Philp,  Jarnes  the  son  of  Alphseus,  and  Judas 
Iscariot ;  but  they  differ  as  regards  the  places  of  those  between  the  above  named.  Yet 
the  classes  themselves  remain  unchanged. 


396  MATTHEW  X.  2. 

rangement — for  instance,  Matthew  and  Luke  place  together  the 
apostles  who  were  brothers,  in  consequence  of  which  Andrew  stands 
before  James  and  John  ;  on  the  other  hand,  in  Mark,  and  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  three  principal  apostles  are  placed  fore- 
most, Peter  being  at  the  head.  Among  those  who  were  nearly  equal 
in  importance,  as  Philip,  Bartholomew,  Thomas,  and  Matthew — 
arbitrary  transpositions  take  place.  But  the  notion,  that  some  of 
the  apostles  were  of  greater  importance  than  others,  is  irresistibly 
forced  upon  us  by  the  evangelical  history — Peter,  James,  and  John, 
especially,  appear  pre-eminent  among  the  twelve.  On  several  impor- 
tant occasions,  Jesus  took  these  alone  into  his  intimate  companion- 
ship. (Besides  Mark  v.  37,  Luke  viii.  51,  comp.  also  Matth.  xvii.  1 
[Mark  ix.  2  ;  Luke  ix.  28];  Matth.  xxvi.  37  [Mark  xiv.  33],  and 
John  xxi.  19,  20,  where  Peter  and  John  only  were  taken.)  The 
disciples  thus  surrounded  the  Lord  in  gradually  expanding  circles. 
Nearest  to  him  stood  the  three,  then  followed  the  other  nine,  then 
the  seventy,  and  last  of  all  the  multitude  of  his  other  disciples. 
Yet,  undeniable  as  was  the  difference  among  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
this  does  not  imply  any  special  secret  doctrine  for  those  who  stood 
nearer  to  him.  The  mystery  of  Christ,  the  highest  and  simplest 
truth,  was  to  be  preached  from  the  house-tops.  Some,  however, 
apprehended  this  mystery  itself  far  more  profoundly  than  the  others, 
and  were  hence  better  fitted  to  move  in  immediate  proximity  to 
the  Lord.  As  regards  the  apostles  individually,  Peter  is  put  at  the 
head  by  all  the  Evangelists  ;  Matthew  calls  him  first,  which  cer- 
tainly is  not  accidental.  (For  particulars,  comp.  the  remarks  on 
Matth.  xvi.  18.)  Concerning  the  cognomen  ITgrpo^,  Peter,  comp. 
the  remarks  on  John  i.  42. — Andrew  stands  much  in  the  back- 
ground throughout  the  gospel  history.  ('Avdpt-ag  =  njn-iDN,  which 
may  be  derived  from  -n;.)  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  appears  only 
in  connexion  with  the  two  coryphaei  of  the  apostles,  viz.  John 
and  Peter.*  According  to  Acts  xii.  2,  he  died  early  the  death  of  a 
martyr.  (Concerning  Philip,  comp.  the  remarks  on  John  i.  45 ;  he 
also  was  from  Bethsaida.  Bartholomew  (^Vn  is  =  son  of  Ptolemy) 
seems  according  to  John  i.  46,  to  be  identical  with  Nathaniel  of 
Cana.  (John  xxi.  2.)  The  evangelical  history  is  silent  regarding  the 
latter  ;  Philip  is  introduced  speaking,  in  John  xiv.  9. — Thomas, 
6wftaf,  efcn,  A&h^o?.  Comp.  concerning  him,  the  remarks  on  John 
xx.  24. — Matthew,  MarOalog ,  with  the  addition  6  rehuvT)?,  the  publi- 
can; this  addition  points  to  Matthew,  the  author  of  the  gospel,  in- 
asmuch as  it  is  wanting  in  all  other  lists  of  the  apostles,  and  an 
addition  of  this  kind  is  made  to  no  other  name.f  It  was  only  the 

*  On  the  cognomen  Boavepyef,  given  to  John  and  James  (Mark  iii.   17),  comp.  the 
remarks  on  Luke  ix.  54. 

f  De  Wetie  (in  his  comment,  on  this  passage)  calls  this  remark  unimportant ;  but  is 


MATTHEW  X.  2.  397 

author  himself  who  could,  with  propriety,  have  added  it ;  in  his 
mouth  it  was  a  recollection  of  the  undeserved  mercy  which 
had  been  bestowed  upon  him.  Concerning  the  various  persons 
called  James,  compare  the  remarks  on  Matthew  xiii.  55,  and  the  in- 
troduction to  the  Epistle  of  James.  Simon,  with  the  cognomen 
the  Canaanite  (6  Kavavirrj^),  is  described  in  a  manner  not  to  be 
mistaken,  by  the  explanatory  cognomen  6  ^on-Tfc,  the  zealot,  which 
Luke  gives  him  in  his  Gospel,  as  well  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles. (KavaviTTjg,  from  «$)>,  to  be  jealous.)  He  had,  no  doubt,  be- 
longed to  the  sect  of  the  Jewish  zealots,  of  whom  mention  is  made 
by  Josephus  (B.  J.  iv.  3,  9.)  His  demagogical  zeal,  hitherto  directed 
only  to  outward  things,  was  subsequently  directed  towards  the  at- 
tainment of  spiritual  freedom.  Greater  difficulties  present  them- 
selves respecting  the  person  of  Lebbeus,  whomMark  calls  Thaddeus. 
In  the  first  place,  the  reading  of  the  text  of  Matthew,  is  doubtful. 
The  addition  6  imicXrjdeig,  surnamed,  is  omitted  in  many  codices. 
Nor  does  it  appear  to  me,  indeed,  to  belong  to  Matthew,  who  in  no 
other  passage  makes  use  of  this  phrase  in  connexion  with  a  name. 
It  is  probable  that  it  may  have  crept  into  the  text  from  some  gloss; 
inasmuch  as,  on  the  margin,  the  very  probable  supposition  was  ex- 
pressed, that  the  Thaddeus  of  Mark  was  identical  with  the  Lebbeus 
of  Matthew.  Mill  supposed  that  this  addition  had  a  reference  to 
the  name  of  Matthew.  He  regarded  the  Lebbeus  =  Levi,  and 
hence  supposed  that  some  one  had  made  this  addition  in  order  to 
direct  attention  to  the  circumstance,  that  Matthew  is  called  Levi  by 
both  Mark  and  Luke.  The  identity  of  the  names  cannot  however 
be  proved.  Ae(3(3aio$,  is  probably  derived  from  A,  heart,  so  that  it 
signifies  cordatus.  Thaddeus  (Qaddalog),  is  perhaps  synonymous 
with  Theudas  (Qevddg)  (see  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm.  p.  2565  ;  s.  v.  in 
mamma  =  to  the  Hebrew  •>&).  Both  the  names  are  wanting  in 
Luke  (in  the  Gospel  as  well  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles) ;  instead 
of  them  he  has  'lovdag  'Ia/cw/3ov,  Judas  (son}  of  James,  who  is  not 
mentioned  by  either  Matthew  or  Mark.  That  there  was  a  Judas 
(not  Iscariot)  among  the  twelve  apostles,  clearly  appears  from  John 
xiv.  22  ;  and  it  may  be  that  he  is  the  same  person  as  this  Leb- 
beus or  Thaddeus.  The  ancient  church  at  a  very  early  period, 
adopted  this  view.  (Hieron.  ad.  h.  1.  calls  him  triple-named, 
Tptonayiof.)  The  view  adopted  by  modern  commentators,  that  we 
ought  to  supply  after  'lantiftov,  of  James,  not  as  commonly  vlog,  son, 
but  d<5eX(j)6<;,  brother,  is  altogether  without  foundation.  This  Judas 

any  other  apostle  designated  after  this  worldly  calling  ?  Is  Peter  designated  the  fisher- 
man, or  anything  of  that  kind?  Moreover,  the  expression  " publican"  has,  in  a  sec- 
ondary sense,  an  opprobrious  signification,  as  appears  from  the  phrase  "  publicans  and 
sinners."  Such  a  cognomen  only  Matthew  himself  could  assume.  Least  of  all  would 
Borne  later  author  of  the  gospel  have  chosen  it,  as  it  would  have  been  the  iuteresUof 
such  an  one  to  extol  Matthew. 


398  MATTHEW  X.  2-6. 

would  then  appear  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude, 
which  forms  part  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  a  brother 
of  James,  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and  of  Simon  Zelotes  ;  and  all  these, 
the  adefapol  rov  Kvpiov  ; — a  view  which  we  shall  endeavour  to  refute 
when  we  come  to  treat  of  Matthew  xiii.  55  ;  John  vii.  5,  and  in  the 
introductions  to  the  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude.  There  exists  no 
reason  whatsoever  for  departing  from  the  common  mode  of  supply- 
ing the  ellipsis  ;  and,  for  this  reason,  we  must  consider  this  Judas, 
with  the  cognomen  Lebbeus,  or  Thaddeus,  to  be  a  different  person 
from  Judas,  the  brother  of  our  Lord.  The  passage  -of  John  vii.  5, 
must  here  serve  as  a  clue  to  lead  us  to  the  truth  ;  for,  according  to 
this  passage,  the  brethren  of  Jesus  did  not  believe  in  him,  and 
could,  therefore,  by  no  means,  have  been  in  the  number  of  the 
twelve  apostles.  Finally,  Judas  Iscariot,  'lovdag  'lanapi^rrj^  =  BIN 
rt*-$,  a  man  of  Karioth.  (Josh.  xv.  25.)*  This  explanation  is  given 
also  in  several  MSS.  on  John  vi.  71 ;  xii.  4,  in  the  words  d-no  Koptwrov. 
Other  derivations,  as,  for  instance,  from  ij?»,  falsehood,  lie,  are  ob- 
viously intended  to  convey  an  allusion  to  his  treacherous  deed  ;  but 
in  this  very  circumstance,  the  pure  character  of  our  gospels  is  mani- 
fested, that  as-  they  abstain  from  every  kind  of  laudatory  expression 
concerning  Christ  and  his  acts  and  discourses,  so,  in  like  manner, 
they  avoid  all  reproachful  allusion  to  Judas.  The  only  remark 
which  they  make,  as  historians,  when  referring  to  the  name  of  Judas, 
is  6  TTaoadovs  avrov,tvho  delivered  him  up.  "With  this  single  exception, 
they  allow  the  stupendous  facts  in  the  history  of  Jesus  to  speak  for 
themselves  ;  and  the  simple,  truthful  descriptions  make  light  and 
shade  appear  in  the  most  striking  contrast.  And  thus,  viewing 
everything  in  its  purely  objective  light,  they  despise  all  paltry,  per- 
sonal censure. 

Ver.  5. — To  this  company  of  the  twelve  apostles,  Jesus,  accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  now  directs  his  discourse.  It  may  appear  strange 
that  it  should  proceed  on  the  principles  of  Jewish  exclusiveness,  in- 
asmuch as  the  apostles  are  prohibited  from  going  to  the  Samaritans 
and  Gentiles.  Luke,  x.  1  has  not  this  limitation  in  the  discourse 
of  Jesus  to  the  Seventy  ;  but  these  Seventy  appear  as  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  whole  Gentile  world,  and  Luke  alone  gives  an  account 
of  them,  as  he  wrote  for  Gentiles.  Jesus,  however,  never  comes  for- 
ward as  a  destroyer  of  the  exclusive  privileges  of  the  Jewish  people, 
which  had  been  vouchsafed  to  them  by  God  himself  (compare  the 
remarks  on  Matth.  xxi.  33)  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  acknowledges  them 
(Matth.  xv.  24),  and  confines  his  own  ministry,  on  the  whole,  to 

*  He  Wette,  agreeing  with  Lightfoot,  has  again  declared  in  favour  of  the  derivation  of 
this  appellative  from  the  word  t^tsmpOK,  "  a  leather  apron,"  or  m50N,  "  strangling." 
The  parallel  passages  in  John,  however,  seem  to  be  altogether  opposed  to  this  derivar 
tion;  the  assertion  that  nvi'P  c^x  or  •»ry,!nj?  could  not  have  been  added  as  a  sur- 
name to  the  proper  name,  is  altogether  destitute  of  proof. 


MATTHEW  X.  5-8.  399 

Palestine.  Ha,  indeed,  hints  at  a  time  at  which  this  exclusiveness 
will  be  done  away  (John  x.  16) ;  but  he  ministers,  in  the  meantime, 
among  Gentiles  and  Samaritans  only  occasionally,  whensoever  their 
faith  constrained  him  to  do  so.  (Compare  Matth.  xv.  21,  seq.,  and 
John  iv.)  We  cannot  suppose  that  in  this  Christ  was  accommoda- 
ting himself  merely  to  the  weakness  of  the  disciples  ;  but  rather  to 
the  demands  of  the  times,  and  the  immediate  destination  of  the 
twelve.  The  Gospel  was  first  to  be  offered  to  Israel  as  a  nation. 
Had  they  received  it,  the  prophecy  of  Micah  (iv.  1,  ff.)  would  have 
been  immediately  fulfilled.  They  rejected  it,  and  it  was  only  at  a 
subsequent  period  that  Paul  received  the  express  command  to 
labour  for  the  Gentile  world  (Acts  ix.  15) ;  and  when  the  Redeemer 
departed  from  the  earth,  he  extended  the  sphere  of  action  of  the 
twelve  also  to  all  nations  (Matth.  xxviii.  19).  But  it  was  necessary, 
first  of  all,  to  prepare,  in  the  nation  of  Israel,  a  hearth  to  receive 
the  sacred  fire,  and  to  keep  its  heat  in  a  state  of  concentration.  It 
was  only  after  the  Church  had  •  thus  been  safely  established  in  the 
midst  of  the  people  of  God,  and  after  the  unbelief  of  the  mass  had 
been  fully  manifested,  that  the  stream  of  life  was  poured  out  over 
the  wide  Gentile  world. 

Ver.  6. — Ilpd/tora  aTroAwAora  are  here  used  in  the  sense  of  sheep 
who  have  gone  astray,  and  have  been  separated  from  their  shepherd 
(compare  the  remarks  on  Luke  xv.  4)  ;  with  evident  reference  to 
Jeremiah  1.  6  •>»?  rt;n  rmnfc  ^s. 

Ver.  7. — The  main  burden  of  their  preaching  is  to  be,  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  (compare  the  remarks  on  Matth.  iii. 
2  ;  iv.  17 );  but  in  the  form  used  by  John  the  Baptist.  (See 
Mark  vi.  12,  they  preached  that  men  should  repent.)  The  direc- 
tion given  to  the  disciples,  and  their  special  object,  were  at  this, 
their  first  mission,  altogether  different  from  what  they  were  after  the 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  apostles  themselves,  as  yet, 
occupied  Old  Testament  ground,  and,  like  the  Baptist,  preached 
repentance,  and  baptized  with  water  (John  iv.  2)  ;  subsequently, 
after  the  soil  had  been  prepared  by  the  previous  preaching  of  repent- 
ance, they  proclaimed  the  remission  of  sins. 

Ver.  8. — With  this  is  connected  the  promise  of  miraculous  heal- 
ing, as  the  first  outward  manifestation  of  the  coming  redemption. 
(Compare  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xi.  5.)  The  exhortation  "  freely 
give"  was  the  natural  result  of  circumstances.  The  disciples  might 
easily  have  been  induced  to  receive  presents,  and  have  thus  been 
imperceptibly  led  to  regard  not  the  faith,  but  the  wealth  of  the  sick, 
thus  inflicting  injury  on  their  own  souls.  They  had  claims  only  for 
the  necessaries  of  life.  (Very  considerable  critical  authorities  omit 
the  clause  "raise  the  dead"  (ve/cpot^  t'ye/pere)  ;  others  place  it  after 
KaOapi&re,  cleanse  the  lepers,  and  this  shows  it  to  be  not  very 


400  MATTHEW  X.  8-10. 

unlikely  a  marginal  gloss.  Mill  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  therefore  con- 
sider it  a  subsequent  addition.  We  might  indeed  suppose  it  added 
to  honour  the  apostles.  But  as  no  instance  of  such  a  miracle  is  re- 
corded, this  very  fact  perhaps  accounts  better  for  the  omission  of  the 
clause.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  because  no  such  example  is 
given,  no  such  case  actually  occurred.) 

Ver.  9,  10. — This  endowment  with  spiritual  riches,  our  Lord 
follows  up  with  the  exhortation  to  go  forth  in  the  external  garb  of 
poverty.  But  the  remark  that  they  need  no  outward  preparation 
for  their  journey,  is,  in  reality,  only  another  view  of  their  riches. 
By  going  forth  without  human  resources,  they  lived  upon  the  rich 
treasure  of  their  heavenly  Father.  The  correct  exposition  of  our 
passage  is  best  obtained  from  a  comparison  with  Luke  xxii.  35-37. 
In  that  passage,  Jesus,  a  short  time  before  his  sufferings,  reminds 
the  apostles  of  that  rich  and  glorious  time  when  he  could  send  them 
forth  with  no  earthly  equipment,  and  remarks  that  the  times  were 
now  different  (as  these  were  the  days  in  which  the  bridegroom  would 
be  taken  from  them) — that  now  every  one  must  prepare  himself  as 
well  as  he  could,  and  to  the  utmost  of  his  power.  The  leading 
thought,  therefore,  is  this  ;  we  live  at  a  time  of  rich  blessings  (it  is 
the  hour  in  which  the  light  is  in  the  ascendant,  contrasted  with 
Luke  ii.  53,  "  This  is  the  hour  and  power  of  darkness  ;"  concerning 
which  passage,  comp/the  Commentary),  when  no  human  prepara- 
tion is  required — "  love  will  guide  you,  love  will  provide  you  !" 
The  details  given  must  not  be  too  much  pressed,  but  must  be  taken 
in  all  the  freedom  in  which  the  apostles  themselves  received  them. 
Mark,  vi.  8,  permits  them  to  take  a  staff ;  but  the  two  other  Evan- 
gelists forbid  even  that  ;*  Matthew  forbids  also  even  the  sandals  ; 
Mark  permits  them.  It  is  a  mere  trifling  with  words  to  insist  here 
on  a  difference  between  vnodrjfjMTa,  shoes,  and  oavddkia,  sandals.  The 
words,  "  The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  meat"  (Matth.  x.  10),  afford 
the  true  point  of  view.  The  Redeemer,  who  had  himself  no  place 
where  to  lay  his  head,  puts  his  disciples  likewise  on  a  footing  of  pure 
faith  ;  -as  the  labourers  of  Grod,f  they  had  to  expect  from  him  what 
was  necessary  for  their  bodily  wants  ;  for  the  exercise  and  proof  of 
their  faith  they  went  forth  without  any  such  careful  preparations  as 
the  man  destitute  of  faith  makes,  and  must  make.  Some  of  the 
disciples  might  even  have  had  some  money  with  them ;  but  in  this 
they  would  not  have  acted  in  opposition  to  the  command  of  Jesus, 

*  Gratz,  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew,  vol.  i.,  p.  519,  is  of  opinion  that  Jesus  only 
forbade  them  to  take  with  them  a  supply,  but  not  that  he  prohibited  the  taking  of  the 
Staff  which  was  in  their  hands,  or  the  shoes  which  were  on  their  feet.  Very  strange, 
certainly!  for  who  ever  carries  witlfhim  a  supply  of  sticks  on  a  journey  I 

f  The  expression  tpydrtif,  labour,  is  a  figurative  one,  according  to  which  mankind 
are  compared  to  a  vineyard  or  arable  field,  in  which  spiritual  labour  is  to  be  performed 
(Concerning  this,  comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xiiL  1,  seq.) 


MATTHEW  X.  10-12.  401 

unless  they  had  taken  it  from  unbelief.  The  command  must  thus 
be  viewed  spiritually — in  its  relation  to  the  disposition  of  mind  and 
to  faith  ;  and,  in  this  respect,  it  has  its  eternal  truth,  applicable  to 
all  labourers  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places. 
Yet  this  word  of  the  Lord  must  never  be  viewed  without  its  neces- 
sary complement  from  Luke  xxii.  35,  seq. 

Ver.  11. — There  now  follow  more  special  precepts  with  regard  to 
their  spiritual  ministry.  The  words  ^erdoare  rig  agios,  inquire  who 
is  worthy,  must  not  be  referred  to  virtuous  and  noble  dispositions, 
but  to  the  poor  (Matth.  v.  3),  the  longing,  the  needy  in  spirit 
(Matth.  ix.  12);  to  these  alone  could  the  proclamation  of  a  Be- 
deemer  be  an  evayye/Uov,  good  news.  [The  work  of  evangelization 
is  never  to  be  prosecuted  at  random.  It  should  seek  first  those  who 
are  in  some  degree  ripe  for  it,  and  spread  from  them  as  a  centre.] 
In  the  same  town  they  were  not  to  change  their  residence.  He  ex- 
horts them  to  strive  after  peace  and  quietness,  in  the  bustle  of  their 
travelling.  (In  Luke  x.  7,  the  same  idea  is  expressed,  with  an 
additional  remark ;  concerning  which,  see  the  comment,  on  that 
passage.) 

Ver.  12 — The  apostles,  as  the  recipients  of  the  spiritual  powers 
which  our  Bedeemer  possessed  without  measure  (John  iii.  34),  and 
had  communicated  to  them  according  to  their  capacities  for  receiv- 
ing them,  are  enjoined  to  communicate  their  gifts.  As  the  sun 
sheds  abroad  his  rays  upon  the  good  and  the  evil,  so  they  also  shall 
bless  the  house  into  which  they  enter  ;  their  blessing  when  given  to 
the  impure,  will  return  to  them.  This  mode  of  expression  flows 
from  a  partially  material  conception  of  spiritual  influence  ;  like  the 
light,  it  pours  itself  forth,  and  returns  again  to  its  source;*  blessing 
and  intercession  are,  according  to  this  view,  an  exhalation  and  in- 
halation of  the  Spirit.  These,  indeed,  are  figurative  expressions, 
but  they  embody  a  substantial  and  profound  meaning.  Led  by 
the  Spirit,  the  apostles  enter  into  a  house  and  say,  Peace  be 
to  this  house  (elprfvii  TU>  ofow  rovrw)  (Luke  x.  5),  not  as  a  mere 
empty  phrase,  like  the  osV  a'lVw  of  the  Jews,  but  as  the  most  genu- 
ine expression  of  their  character  and  office.  The  blessing  remains 
where  it  finds  a  welcome  place  (a&og,  worthy,  is  again  to  be  under- 
stood, in  the  evangelical  sense,  of  all  those  who  are  hi  want  of,  and 
long  for  salvation  and  mercy)  ;  where  it  finds  no  welcome,  it  returns 
to  those  who  pronounced  it,  as  to  its  living  source.  Hence  the  Spirit 
appears  as  that  which  is  life  itself,  having  its  fountains  from  which 
it  emanates  and  into  which  it  returns,  if  it  does  not  find  a  place 
wherein  to  settle,  in  order  to  create  a  new  fountain.  (John  iv.  14  ; 
vii.  38.) 

*  This  mode  of  viewing  is  rendered  specially  prominent,  in  the  representation  of  x&PX 
and  TTvetyta,  as  given  by  John.    Comp.  the  remarks  on  John  vii.  38,  39. 
VOL.  I.— 26 


402  MATTHEW  X.  14-18. 

Ver.  14. — Wherever  the  feeling  of  need,  and  the  longing  for  that 
which  is  divine  are  wanting,  thence  the  messenger  of  Christ  de- 
parts ;  he  comes  only  to  bring  to  the  sick  the  message  of  healing. 
The  shaking  off  the  dust  (tKrivdooeiv  /cowoprov),  is  a  symbolical 
representation  of  total  and  utter  separation  and  renunciation. 
(Acts  xiii.  51  ;  xviii.  6.)  To  express  an  idea  by  means  of  action  is 
very  common  in  the  Old  as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in- 
deed throughout  the  whole  of  the  East ;  this  mode  of  speech  is  more 
impressive  for  sensual  man  than  mere  words.  (Comp.  the  remarks 
on  Matth.  xxvii.  24.) 

Ver.  15. — Sodom  and  Gomorrha  are  held  forth  as  the  symbols 
of  God's  justice  punishing  alienation  from  himself.  The  greatness 
of  the  guilt  is  proportioned  to  the  clearness  and  purity  in  which  the 
heavenly  element  has  presented  itself  to  him  who  hardens  himself 
against  its  impressions.  He  who  turns  away  the  messengers  of 
Christ,  shews  himself  more  hardened  than  the  old  sinners  of  Sodom, 
because  they  represent  that  which  is  divine,  more  purely  than  did 
Lot  and  his  pious  contemporaries.  (Concerning  the  whole  idea  here 
hinted  at,  comp.  the  more  extended  remarks  on  Matth.  xi.  22,  24.) 

Ver.  16. — From  this  exhibition  of  the  lighter  side  of  the  apostles' 
ministry,  the  Saviour  turns  to  its  darker  side,  viz.,  their  relation  to 
the  enemies  of  his  kingdom.  As  the  wolf  is  the  symbol  of  cunning 
malice,  so  is  the  sheep  of  simple  purity ;  it  stands  defenceless 
against  the  wild  power  which  knows  no  restraint.  This  is  a  very 
significant  picture  of  the  position  of  every  follower  of  the  Lamb 
(Rev.  xiv.  4),  among  the  perverse  race  of  the  children  of  this  world. 
Continuing  the  use  of  significant  animal  symbolisms,  the  Lord  ex- 
horts to  prudence — a  virtue  specially  difficult  for  the  believer  to 
attain  ;  he  fears  the  character  of  the  old  serpent,  and  prefers  to  suf- 
fer rather  than  to  deceive.  In  the  Trepia-epa,  dove,  the  symbol 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Matth.  iii.  16),  purity  of  soul  is  expressed ; 
(ditKpaiog  =  unmixed,  pure,  without  guile) ;  in  the  ofag,  serpent, 
(Gen.  iii.  1),  cunning  and  prudence.  (Qpovifiog,  ^povijoi^^  de- 
rived from  0pevec,  signifies,  in  biblical  anthropology,  understand- 
ing, and  power  of  reasoning,  which  is  shewn  in  adapting  itself 
to  circumstances.)  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Luke  i.  17.)  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  combine  this  wisdom  of  the  serpent  with  the  guilelessness  of 
the  dove  ;  but  the  very  command  of  Jesus  testifies  that  it  is  not 
impossible.  Yet,  in  the  course  of  Christian  development,  let  pru- 
dence suffer  rather  than  simplicity,  if  their  union  is  as  yet  unat- 
tained. 

Ver.  17,  18. — Their  impending  suffering  for  the  testimony 
Jesus,  is  now  more  definitely  brought  before  them.  The  Lord  in- 
timates that  their  life,  which  as  yet  moved  in  a  narrow  sphere, 
would  be  brought  out  into  the  publicity  of  the  great  world, 


MATTHEW  X.  18-21.  403 

and  that  earthly  tribulations  of  all  kinds  await  the  preacher  of 
heavenly  peace.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xxiv.  9.)  The 
awedpia,  councils,  are  the  courts  of  justice  in  the  provincial  towns. 
(Comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  v.  21.  In  like  manner,  it  is  used  in 
Mark  xv.  9.)  The  discourse  ascends  from  the  minor  to  the  major. 
The  rjje[j.6veg,  governors  (comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xxvii.  1),  are 
the  Roman  pro-consuls  ;  the  Pamtelg,  kings,  are  the  tetrarchs  (Acts 
xii.  1 ;  xxvi.  1.)  Concerning  the  words,  d<;  [wprvptov,  comp.  the  re- 
marks on  Matth.  viii.  4.  In  the  sufferings  which  the  children  of 
God  have  to  experience  from  the  world  for  the  name  of  Jesus,  their 
true  character — that  of  suffering  and  self-sacrificing  love — will  make 
itself  manifest. 

Ver.  19,  20. — As  a  consolation  in  the  prospect  of  such  sufferings, 
our  Lord  promises  them  special  help  from  above.  The  disciples, 
inexperienced  and  unskilled  in  speaking,  are  directed  to  the  spirit 
of  all  wisdom.  The  words,  ^  nepipvijoyre,  mSf  ^  ri  AaA?7<77?Te,  take  no 
thought  how  or  what  ye  shall  speak,  exclude  all  human  calculation, 
and  refer  the  disciples  to  a  higher  principle,  to  the  Spirit  from  above. 
The  idea  that  it  is  a  gift  of  God  to  know  how  to  speak  a  word  in 
season,  is  expressed  in  Isaiah  1.  4.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Luke 
xxi.  15.)  This  does  not,  of  course,  exclude  the  use  of  the  natural 
powers — these  are  rather  to  be  sanctified  by  this  Spirit.  The  word 
fjiepLfivav,  take  thought,  must  therefore  refer  to  the  anxious  collecting 
of  one's  own  strength,  as  is  done  by  the  unbelieving  natural  man, 
who  is  ignorant  of  any  higher  source  of  life  and  power.  Such  a  reli- 
ance on  a  higher  power,  however,  would  be  fanaticism,  if,  first,  the 
conditions  of  help  from  above,  viz.,  repentance  and  true  faith,  were 
wanting,  and  if,  secondly,  impurity  should  design  to  apply  it 
to  wicked  purposes.  To  confirm  them  in  the  conviction  of  such 
help  from  above,  Jesus  adds  :  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  etc.  Indi- 
vidual characters  thus  disappear  altogether  in  the  great  struggle 
between  light  and  darkness  ;  God's  cause  is  at  stake,  and  that  is 
pleaded  by  his  Spirit  in  those  instruments  which  he  consecrates  to 
himself.  By  views  like  these,  the  individual  gains  an  invincible 
power,  inasmuch  as  he  is  taken  from  his  isolation,  and  recognizes 
himself  as  the  member  of  a  great  invincible  community.  The 
Spirit  of  the  father  (-rrvevpa  Trarpog)  is  contrasted  immediately  with 
the  spirit  of  the  disciples  themselves  ;  the  heavenly  principle  ap- 
pears, therefore,  as  already  operating  in  them,  although  it  had  not 
yet  displayed  itself  in  its  full  power.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  John 
vii.  39.) 

Ver.  21. — Hitherto  the  discourse  has  contained  nothing  inappli- 
cable to  existing  circumstances  ;  but  the  following  verses  seem  to 
have  another  reference,  viz.,  to  such  circumstances  as  are  described 
in  chap.  xxiv.  They  point  to  a  sphere  of  action  of  a  wider  extent 


404  MATTHEW  X.  21-23. 

than  that  which  would  present  itself  to  the  disciples  in  this,  their 
first  mission.  Our  Redeemer  would  no  doubt  speak  to  them  of  per- 
secutions, even  unto  death,*  only  in  the  last  days  of  his  earthly 
ministry.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xxiv.  10,  12.)  The  rela- 
tions of  the  disciples,  however,  were  analogous  in  the  various  periods 
of  their  ministry  ;  and,  in  so  far,  these  verses  also  have  here  their 
full  application.  The  Gospel  is  now  represented  as  overruling  the 
natural  relations  of  earthly  life.  The  element  of  new  life,  which  it 
has  brought  into  the  world,  is  arrested  in  its  course  by  no  barriers 
of  relationship  or  family  ties  ;  every  where  it  appropriates  to  itself 
susceptible  minds.  But,  precisely  for  this  reason  does  it  also  call 
forth  opposition  in  minds  that  do  not  lay  themselves  open  to  its  in- 
fluence, and  the  Gospel  of  peace  brings  the  sword  into  the  bosom 
of  families ;  for,  being  the  Word  of  God,  it  divides  asunder  the 
joints  and  marrow  (Heb.  iv.  12.)  The  history  of  the  spreading  of 
Christianity  proves  the  literal  truth  of  theft  prophetic  words  of  our 
Redeemer.  (Comp.  the  Acta  Martyrii  perpetuce  et  Felicitatis, 
printed  in  my  Monum.  Hist.  Eccles.  vol.  i.,  p.  96,  seq.)  But  as  phe- 
nomena of  that  kind  could  not  have  happened  at  the  time  when  the 
Redeemer  spoke  those  remarkable  words,  they  bear  a  prophetic 
character. 

Ver.  22. — The  hatred  of  all  men,  actuated  by  purely  worldly 
principles,  is  specially  directed  against  the  name  of  Jesus.  Natural 
virtue  the  world  may  find  to  be  amiable,  for  the  world  perceives  it 
to  be  a  product  of  its  own  life  ;  but  it  hates  what  is  specifically 
Christian,  for  it  feels  that  therein  is  its  death  (James  iv.  4.)  The 
reference  to  the  impending  persecutions  required  some  hint  con- 
cerning the  earnestness  and  endurance  necessary  for  the  struggle. 
Salvation  is  connected  with  endurance.  The  words  d$  rtvlof,  to  the 
end,  admit,  primarily,  a  reference  only  to  individuals,  not  to  the 
tribulation  of  the  entire  body  ;  for  death  brings  to  every  individual 
believer,  the  end  of  trouble,  and  the  beginning  of  everlasting  safety. 
Yet  the  passage  reads  (and  ver.  23  confirms  the  impression  that  the 
sense  of  these  words  extends  farther)  as  part  of  some  prophetic  dis- 
course concerning  the  second  coming.  That  the  mention  of  this 
second  coming,  seems  unsuited  to  the  occasion  of  the  first  mission 
of  the  disciples,  will  presently  be  more  fully  developed. 

Ver.  23. — In  view  of  the  impending  persecutions,  Jesus  once 
more  recommends  prudence  ;  he  advises  them  to  avoid  them  as 
much  as  possible,  that  they  may  not  receive  injury  in  their  souls  by 
wilfully  entering  into  danger,  or  continuing  in  it.  The  church  has 
ever  acted  according  to  this  precept ;  it  was  only  Montanistic  rigour 
that  would  prohibit  a  fleeing  from  persecution.  (The  passage  KO.V 

*  Decisive,  in  this  respect,  is  the  passage  John  xvL  4,  the  exposition  of  which  may 
be  compared. 


MATTHEW  X.  23.  405 

in  ravTrjg  K.  r.  A.  is,  no  doubt,  genuine  ;  its  omission  in  some  MSS. 
originated,  most  probably,  from  the  similarity  in  the  terminations 
of  the  clauses,  homoioteleuton.}  In  the  closing  words,  the  reference 
to  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and  to  the  end  (which  was  already 
perceptible  in  ver.  22)  clearly  appears.  The  Son  of  Man  is  to  come 
again  before  the  disciples  who  were  sent  forth  should  have  wandered 
through  all  the  cities  of  Israel  (rekeiv  sc.  o66v).  Here  a  difficulty 
arises,  inasmuch  as  it  seems  not  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  this 
mission  that  the  apostles  should  travel  through  the  whole  country  ; 
but  that  it  took  place,  in  a  great  measure,  for  the  training  of  the 
disciples  themselves.  From  the  feeling,  therefore,  that  the  connex- 
ion demanded  a  reference  to  something  about  to  happen  immediate- 
ly, the  explanation  originated ;  "  You  will  not  need  to  hasten 
through  all  the  towns  of  Judea,  in  the  persecution  which  you  are 
to  meet  with ;  I  will  be  with  you  again  ere  that."  But  yet  to  this 
sense  of  the  words,  although  grammatically  admissible,  does  not 
suit,  in  the  first  place,  the  earnest  ap?v,  verily;  and,  secondly,  Jesus 
does  not  come  to  them,  but  they  come  back  to  Jesus  (Luke  ix.  10) ; 
and  finally,  the  phrase,  "  the  Son  of  Man  cometh"  (ep%erai  6  vib$ 
TOV  av0pw7Tot>),  has  a  definite  doctrinal  signification — it  always  refers 
to  the  second  coming  (-rrapovoia).  But  of  this  (viz.,  the  -napovoia) 
Jesus  cannot,  according  to  the  whole  context,  have  well  spoken. 
Nor  is  any  thing  gained  by  referring  the  coming  of  our  Lord  to  the 
resurrection,  or  to  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  or  even  to  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  ;  for  all  these  events  were  too  remote  from 
the  disciples  during  the  first  period  of  their  living  with  Christ.  It 
is  a  matter  of  course  that  the  return  should  be  dependent  upon  the 
departure  from  them  ;  but  of  the  latter  the  Redeemer  had  not  yet 
spoken.  It  was  only  at  a  subsequent  period,  viz.,  shortly  before, 
and  at  his  transfiguration,  that  he  gave  to  his  disciples  an  insight 
into  these  two  events  (Matth.  xii.  40  ;  xvi.  21,  27 ;  xvii.  1,  seq. ; 
Luke  ix.  22,  31) ;  it  was  only  on  this  solemn  occasion  that,  by  means 
of  heavenly  messengers,  the  Lord  himself,  in  his  human  conscious- 
ness, was  made  acquainted  with  the  divine  counsel,  in  its  whole  ex- 
tent, concerning  the  redemption  of  mankind  through  his  sufferings. 
Thus  these  words  which  make  mention  of  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  involve,  by  way  of  anticipation,  a  wider  range  of  vision.  They 
blend  with  the  earlier,  the  subsequent  mission  of  the  disciples,  and 
thus  form  a  system  of  general  instruction  for  the  disciples  in  preach- 
ing the  Gospel.  It  is  true  that  this  liberty  which  the  Evangelists, 
especially  Matthew,  allow  themselves  (as  appears  on  a  close  ex- 
amination) in  the  treatment  of  our  Lord's  discourses  is,  after 
all,  somewhat  remarkable.  (Concerning  this,  compare  §  8  of  the 
Introduction.  But  that  which  would  have  destroyed  the  character 
of  the  Gospel,  if  it  had  been  done  by  an  uncongenial  spirit,  tends 


406  MATTHEW  X.  23-25. 

only  to  add  to  its  splendour,  if  done  by  the  kindred  divine  Spirit. 
The  various  sentiments  of  Christ  resemble  pearls  and  jewels  which 
the  Evangelists  freely  use,  in  order  to  produce  the  most  varied  and 
beautiful  works.*  (Compare  on  this  passage  the  comment,  on 
Matth.  xxiv.  1.) 

Ver.  24. — Jesus  continues  to  intimate  to  the  disciples  their  fu- 
ture destinies,  by  comparing  them  with  himself.  The  passage  is 
given  in  a  different  connexion  by  Luke  (vi.  40),  and  with  the  addi- 
tion Ka.T7]pTtoiJ,£vo<;  <5e  ncic;  KOTL  &$  6  dtddaicakog,  but  in  which  the  word 
Karrjpnafievog  must  be  understood  as  signifying,  perfectly  educated, 
accomplished;  so  that  the  meaning  of  the  words  would  be,  "  the 
accomplished  disciple  resembles  his  master  in  all  things."  (Com- 
pare remarks  on  these  words  in  the  comment,  on  Matth.  v.  1,  with 
reference  to  the  connexion  of  the  discourse  in  Luke  [chap.  vi.  20, 
seq.])  The  thought  is  rendered  difficult  by  the  reflection  which 
forces  itself  upon  the  reader,  that  many  disciples  surpass  their 
teachers.f  An  appeal  to  the  proverbial  mode  of  speech,  contained  in 
these  words,  is  evidently  of  no  avail,  for  another  proverb  says, 
"  Many  disciples  are  superior  to  their  teachers"  (-rroXXol  nadr^ral 
Kpeioaoves  Sidaaicdkuv.')  The  first  requisite  of  a  good  proverb  (and 
certainly  the  Lord  can  have  employed  none  but  good  ones)  is,  that 
it  be  the  expression  of  truth.  This  difficulty,  however,  is  removed, 
if  we  consider  that  the  disciple  who  surpasses  his  master,  ceases,  at 
that  very  moment,  to  be  his  disciple  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word; 
as  a  disciple,  he  can  go  no  farther  than  his  master  ;  hence,  if  he  goes 
farther  than  the  master,  he  must  have  had  some  other  master,  and 
if  he  has  no  human  one,  the  Spirit  must  have  been  his  teacher, 
who  has  brought  out  that  which  was  dormant  in  him.  These  words, 
viewed  thus,  have  their  relative  truth  everywhere  :  but,  in  an  abso- 
lute sense,  they  beautifully  express  the  relation  of  the  disciples  to 
Christ.  He,  the  image  of  the  Father,  could  not  be  surpassed, 
either  by  his  disciples  or  by  any  other  ;  he  is  Lord  and  teacher,  in 
the  absolute  sense,  and  compared  to  him,  no  one  ever  gets  beyond 
the  sphere  of  dependence  and  instruction.  In  this  relation,  then,  it 
is  likewise  absolutely  true,  that  whatever  happened  to  the  master, 
must  also  happen  to  the  disciple. 

Ver.  25. — As  the  height  of  the  hostile  disposition,  it  is  stated 
that  the  world  will  call  diabolical,  that  which  is  in  its  purest  rnani- 

*  Why  might  not  Jesus  himself  in  prophetic  anticipation,  have  here  foretold  to  the 
disciples  once  for  all,  the  collective  result  of  their  entire  future,  and  now  but  commencing 
ministry:  to  wit,  that  they  must./?e«  from  city  to  city,  but  that  he  would  come  in  judg- 
ment on  Israel,  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  before  they  should  have  completed  in 
their  flight  the  entire  circuit  ? — [E. 

f  There  seems  no  necessity  of  finding  a  difficulty  here.  The  words  convey  the  gen- 
eral and  unquestionable  truth,  that  the  disciple  naturally  takes  the  impress  of  his  mas- 
ter.—-[K. 


MATTHEW  X.  25-27.  407 

festation,  divine;  and  this,  at  the  same  time,  implies  the  contrast, 
that  the  world  regards  the  diabolical  element  as  the  divine,  and 
thus  seeks  to  effect  a  total  confusion  of  the  elements  of  good  and 
evil.  If  such  be  the  case  with  the  sun,  what  must  happen  to  his 
rays  ;  if  the  master  be  treated  thus,  what  must  be  done  to  his  ser- 
vants, in  whom  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  only  reflected  ?  (Okio/cof, 
comp.  ver.  36,  domesticus,  with  reference  to  the  okodeairoTT/f.)  The 
passage  refers  -us  back  to  Matthew  ix.  34,  KV  rw  d^ovn  r&v  daipovMv 
licpdhkei  ra  daipovta,  by  the  prince  of  the  devils,  etc.  (Comp.  xii.  24.) 
This  expression  is  not  different  from  intKaheiv  Be£/l£e/3ot>A,  calling 
on  Beelzebub,  for,  in  order  to  be  able  to  cast  out  devils  through  him, 
he  must  be  in  the  individual  that  casts  them  out.  As  regards  the 
name,  Eee^eftovft  is  =  a^t  V??.  He  was  a  god  of  the  Bkronites,  so 
called  because  the  power  was  ascribed  to  him  of  removing  trouble- 
some flies,  as  Jupiter  also  had  the  cognomen  dno^viog,  iiviaypog.  In 
the  New  Testament,  however,  the  reading  Bee/UfoSov/l,  Beelzeboul,  is 
to  be  preferred,  inasmuch  as  the  Jews,  out  of  derision,  changed  the 
name  of  the  idol  into  a  form  suggestive  of  contempt.  For,  this 
form  of  the  name  (derived  from  V?a  and  Sa.t)  signifies  the  lord  of 
mire.  (Comp.  Lightfoot  on  Matth.  xii.  24.)  The  interpretation  of 
this  name,  as  given  by  Dr.  Paulus,  is  very  ingenious.  According  to 
him,  the  form  must  be  resolved  into  the  words  V=ar  V?a,  lord  of  the 
dwelling,  viz.,  of  the  subterraneous  one  ;  to  this  would  very  well 
answer  the  okodecrn-orT/f,  householder,  of  Christ.  But  that  the  prince 
of  darkness  is  named'after  a  national  deity,  arises  from  the  circum- 
stance that,  according  to  the  constant  view  of  Scripture  (comp.  the 
remarks  on  1  Cor.  viii.  5),  heathenish  life,  devoted  to  idolatry,  ap- 
pears as  the  element  of  darkness. 

Yer.  26,  27. — Christ  keeps  the  minds  of  the  disciples  in  a  state 
betwixt  fear  and  implicit  faith ;  by  the  former,  he  urges  them  to 
earnestness,  by  the  latter,  he  preserves  them  from  despondency.  It 
appears  very  striking,  that  their  confidence  is  based  upon  the  cer- 
tainty of  a  future  disclosure  of  all  that  is  concealed.  This  is  the 
fundamental  idea  of  all  the  four  clauses  of  these  two  verses.  True, 
the  unveiling  of  what  is  hidden,  can  never,  in  itself,  be  the  founda-r 
tion  of  faith  ;  if  the  mystery  were  something  evil,  it  would  rather 
give  rise  to  fear.  But,  for  the  bosom  which  conceals  within  it  that 
which  is  holy,  but  as  yet  unintelligible  to  those  around,  no  certainty 
can  be  more  consoling  than  that  of  its  coming  manifestation,  for 
with  this  comes  also  the  triumph  of  the  good.  Ver.  20  contains 
the  explanation  of  the  preceding  verse  ;  the  two  clauses  contained 
in  each,  must  be  viewed  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  parallelismus 
membrorum.  The  words  KV  rf/  anoria,  in  darkness,  are  opposed  to 
KEKa^.vp,/j,Kvov,  covered,  and  signify  the  unintentional  darkness  which 
rests  on  anything  ;  in  this  case,  for  instance,  on  Galilee,  a  country 


408  MATTHEW  X.  27,  28. 

hitherto  unknown,  but  out  of  which,  nevertheless,  a  new  life  arose. 
The  "  hearing  in  the  ear"  (dg  rb  ov?  duovetv),  on  the  contrary,  cor- 
responds with  "  that  which  is  hid"  (TO  apv-nrov),  and  denotes  here 
the  intentional  concealment  of  that  which  is  hereafter  to  be  com- 
municated, as  in  the  case  before  us,  the  opening  of  the  mysteries 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  within  the  narrow  circle  of  the  apostles. 
The  future  free  proclamation  of  the  divine  counsel  in  all  its  rela- 
tions, and  the  disclosure  of  all  the  mysteries  in  the  church  by  the 
Spirit,  are  hinted  at  in  these  words.  The  church  knows  of 
no  mysteries  to  be  kept  back.  (In  the  phrase  KqpvaoEiv  6m  r&v 
dufidruv,  proclaim  on  the  house-tops,  the  form  of  the  ancient  houses 
and  roofs  must  be  borne  in  mind.) 

-  Ver.  28. — The  general  exhortation  "  fear  not  then"  (verse  26)  is, 
in  the  28th  verse,  brought  into  connexion  with  the  true  object  of 
fear,  whilst  its  false  objects  are  excluded.  With  reference  to  verse 
21,  Jesus  remarks,  that  the  enemies  of  physical  life  should  not  be 
objects  of  fear  to  a  child  of  God,  inasmuch  as  their  power  cannot 
reach  his  true  life.  The  words  "  cannot  kill  the  soul"  (fir)  6vvao9ai 
rip  ijjvxrjv  drtofcrelvai),  contain  an  allusion  to  their  purely  external 
power,  which  is  not  able  to  penetrate  into  the  domain  of  spiritual 
life,  in  which  the  faithful  move.  This  power,  however,  is  ascribed 
to  some  other  agent,  and  of  him  the  Lord  commands  them  to  be 
afraid.  The  following  reasons,  apparently,  compel  us  to  understand 
thereby  the  prince  of  darkness  :  1st,  If  those  words  were  to  be  re- 
ferred to  God,  the  expression/ear  (<poj3elodai\  ntust  be  understood  in 
two  different  senses,  in  the  same  verse,*  the  first  time,  in  the  sense 
of  be  afraid  (metuere),  the  second  time,  in  the  sense  of  reverence 
(revereri);  2d,  Verses  29  and  30  would  scarcely  agree  with  it,  in- 
asmuch as  God  is  represented  in  them,  as  a  protector  in  dan- 
ger and  distress  ;  and  on  this,  verse  31  founds  the  exhortation 
"  fear  not  therefore"  (JUT/  ovv  </>o/37?07/T£),  which  would  then  form  a 
contradiction  to  the  "  fear"  (tpoftrjOrj-e)  found  here,  and  so  emphati- 
cally  repeated  in  Luke  xii.  5  ;  3d,  It  appears  unsuitable  to  say  of 
God,  that  he  destroys  souls,  inasmuch  as  it  is  he  who  saves  them. 
But  still  it  would  be  a  decisive  argument  against  this  view,  that,  in 
Scripture,  the  devil  never  appears  as  he  who  condemns  to  hell ;  his 
whole  activity  depends  upon  the  permissive  will  of  God.  (James 
iv.  12.)  Moreover,  as  verse  33  clearly  indicates  the  possibility  of 
apostacy  and  denial,  the  passage  is  best  understood  of  a  powerful 
exhortation  given  by  the  Redeemer  to  the  disciples  to  earnestness, 
and  diligence  hi  preserving  and  making  sure  their  calling.  True, 

*  No  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  change  in  Qopeladai  TIVU  and  a?rd  TLVOS  ;  the  former 
combination  also  may  also  signify  metuere ;  but,  in  the  sense  of  revncri,  it  certainly  5s  not 
found  in  connection  with  uno.  In  the  usage  of  profane  writers  '  to  be  afraid  of,"  "  t« 
reverence,"  is  expressed  by  (j>o(3ela6at  Trpof  TI. 


MATTHEW  X.  28-36.  409 

in  this  case,  we  cannot  avoid  changing  the  meaning  of  "fear" 
(0o/3e«r0a<);  such  cases,  however,  are  not  unfrequent.  And  the 
"  fear  not  therefore"  of  ver.  31,  refers  under  this  interpretation  to 
the  assumed  fidelity  of  the  disciples.  (Concerning  yeevva,  comp. 
the  remarks  on  Matt.  v.  22.) 

Ver.  29,  30. — As  an  antidote  to  fear,  Jesus  refers  the  apostles  to 
the  almighty  aid  of  God,  for  whose  kingdom  they  were  contending. 
How  should  he,  who  feeds  the  sparrows  and  numbers  the  hairs  of 
the  head,  not  guard  the  lives  of  his  faithful  servants  ?  Srpovdiov, 
sparroiv,  is  here,  as  frequently  in  the  LXX.  =  ites.  An  daodpiov, 
was  the  tenth  part  of  a  dpo^w?.) 

Ver.  31. — The  consolatory  power  of  this  doctrine  is  founded  in 
the  special  providence  of  God.  Everywhere,  as  in  nature,  it  com- 
bines the  greatest  and  the  least  into  one  harmonious  whole.  Thou- 
sands are  fed,  and  the  crumbs  are  collected  ;  our  Kedeemer  rises 
from  his  grave,  and  the  linen  is  carefully  folded  together. 

Ver.  32,  33. — The  whole  assumes  more  and  more  a  general  cha- 
racter :  the  discourse  gradually  extends  to  the  whole  collective  body 
of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  in  their  conflict  with  the  world.  Christ 
also  appears  here  as  he  whose  recognition  has  a  decisive  influence  on 
man's  everlasting  weal  or  woe  ;  whose  testimony  is  accepted  be- 
fore God  and  his  angels.  The  believer's  confession  before  men 
(as  the  enemies  of  that  which  is  good)  is  contrasted  with  Christ's 
confession  before  the  heavenly  host.  Whosoever  takes  upon  him 
the  ignominy  of  appearing  as  a  true  worshipper  of  Christ  will  be  re- 
ceived as  such  when  Christ  reveals  himself  in  his  glory.  But  this 
declaration  is  immediately  followed  by  its  contrast  (verse  33)  ;  as 
the  latter  fills  with  fear,  so  the  former  allures.  The  whole  declara- 
tion has,  of  course,  a  reference  to  believers  only,  who  have  recognised 
the  Lord  in  his  true  character,  and  who  now  either  venture  to  con- 
fess their  faith,  or  conceal  it  through  fear  ;  the  latter  course  must 
extinguish  the  light  of  faith  which  was  kindled  in  them,  and  exclude 
from  the  kingdom  of  God. 

Ver.  34. — As  the  fear  of  strife  and  persecution  might  easily  deter 
from  an  open  confession,  our  Lord  .distinctly  points  out  that  the 
Gospel,  from  its  very  nature,  must  occasion  strife.  Not  as  though 
strife  itself  were  the  object  of  the  Gospel  (its  object  is  peace,  the  end 
of  strife),  but  strife  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  Christ's  coming 
into  the  world,  or  into  a  heart.  Just  because  in  Christ  there  ap- 
pears absolute  holiness,  whilst  the  world  comprises  in  itself  good  and 
evil  mixed  together,  therefore  the  spirit  of  Christ  (fid%aipa,  sword, 
Ephes.  vi.  17),  cuts  off  the  evil  (dia^iapo^^  separation,  Luke  xii. 
51),  and  along  with  it  him  who  clings  to  it. 

Vers.  35,  36. — Jesus  sets  forth  the  results  of  this  separating 
power  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  verses  21,  22.  The 


410  MATTHEW  X.  36-38. 

sword  of  the  Spirit  severs  the  most  intimate  connexions  based  upon 
human  relationships,  and  earthly  love  ;  destroys  them  if  they  at- 
tempt to  hold  fast  the  unholy  element ;  and  ennobles  them  if  free 
scope  is  everywhere  given  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  which  our  Lord 
here  points  out  as  his  requisition  upon  believers,  viz.,  to  be  separ- 
rated  from  all  earthly  ties,  even  the  most  intimate,  for  the  sake  of 
union  with  himself,  was  already  declared  by  Moses  of  the  Levites  : 
"  Who  said  unto  his  father  and  to  his  mother,  I  have  not  seen  him  ; 
neither  did  he  acknowledge  his  brethren,  nor  know  his  own  children  : 
for  they  have  observed  thy  word,  and  kept  thy  covenant.  They 
shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judgments,  and  Israel  thy  law."  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  9,  10.  Comp.  Gen.  xii.  1.) 

Ver.  37. — The  love  of  Christ  must  be  stronger  than  either  the 
love  of  father  or  of  mother  [and  must  prove  itself  the  stronger  in  all 
cases  where  they  come  into  conflict,  i.  e.,  where  parents  appeal  to 
filial  duty  to  enforce  their  command  of  disobedience  to  Christ]. 
(Compare  the  remarks  on  Luke  xiv.  26,  where  the  still  stronger  ex- 
pression occurs  :  jjuodv  -rrarspa  K.  r.  A.)  Very  significant  is  the 
clause,  "  is  not  worthy  of  me/'  for  Christ  himself  is  the  aim  and  ob- 
ject of  believers ;  they  long  for  himself  as  he  is  in  the  power  of  his 
resurrection  and  in  his  sufferings.  (Compare  the  remarks  on  Philip, 
iii.  10.)  This  effect  of  the  Gospel — its  claiming  the  Vhole  man — 
makes  the  world  rage  with  fury  ;  for  this  reason  it  makes  to  itself 
another  Christ,  who  allows  good  and  evil  to  dwell  peaceably  and 
quietly  together.  But  if  Christ  had  not  been  the  Truth  and  Life 
itself  (John  xiv.  6),  it  would  have  been  a  violation  of  the  most  sacred 
duties  to  demand  that,  for  his  sake,  the  dearest  ties  of  relationship 
should  be  disregarded.  It  is  only  God  whom  we  must  obey  rather 
than  father  and  mother ;  and  Christ,  only  because  we  behold  in 
him  the  Father  (John  xiv.  9).  And  therefore,  by  assigning  to  him 
a  rank  above  all  that  is  most  dear  and  sacred,  no  duty  is  violated  ; 
on  the  contrary,  every  duty  is  purified  and  ennobled.  The  com- 
mand, "  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother,"  is  thus  not  abrogated, 
but  fulfilled  (Matth.  v.  17),  inasmuch  as  man  recognises  himself  in 
Christ  Jesus  as  a  child  of  the  Father,  of  whom  the  whole  family  in 
heaven  and  earth  is  named  (Ephes.  iii.  15). 

Yer.  38. — With  this  demand  of  a  separation  from  all  earthly 
ties  which  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  if  it  be  a  living  one,  at  all  times 
presupposes,  is  connected  the  intimation  of  a  course  of  life  full  of 
sufferings,  the  end  of  which  is  death.  How  deeply  must  our  Lord 
have  been  conscious  of  the  glory  and  blessedness  to  be  given  by  him, 
if  he  did  not  hesitate  to  draw  such  a  picture  of  the  life  of  his  follow- 
ers !  The  words,  aravpbv  hanftdveiv,  take  his  cross,  spoken  before 
the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord,  must  be  explained  from  the  general 
custom  of  malefactors  being  themselves  obliged  to  carry  their  cross 


MATTHEW  X.  38,  39.  411 

to  the  place  of  execution.  In  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  they  assume  a 
prophetic  character,  as  they  were  spoken  previous  to  his  sufferings. 
Fritzsche  (on  this  passage)  distinguishes  between  ha{ij3dveiv  and  aipeiv 
TOV  oravp6v}  and  refers  the  latter  expression  to  the  spontaneous  taking 
up  of  the  cross.  The  ditokovddvdmou,  following  after,  refers  evidently 
to  the  subsequent  bearing  of  the  cross,  with  the  death  of  the  cross, 
as  its  final  consummation.  The  life  of  the  followers  of  Christ  upon 
earth,  is  necessarily  toilsome,  inasmuch  as  they  live  continually  in 
the  midst  of  dangers,  and  sacrifice  their  own  will  to  the  will  of  God  ; 
and,  hence,  it  resembles  a  continual  dying  on  the  cross.  Although, 
according  to  the  context,  that  which  has  been  here  said  has  a  pri- 
mary reference  to  a  life  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity — a  life  ex- 
posed to  bodily  dangers  and  persecutions,  yet  it  retains  its  truth  for 
all  time  in  reference  to  the  inward  struggles  of  the  believer ;  and 
hence  this  same  figurative  mode  of  expression  is  used  throughout 
Scripture.  (Oral.  ii.  20,  v.  24  ;  Komans  vi.  6.) 

Ver.  39. — From  this  one  aspect  of  the  Christian's  sufferings,  viz., 
persecution  and  perils  of  death,  the  eye  is  directed  to  a  view  still 
more  general ;  the  death  of  the  old  life  is  the  condition  of  the  birth 
of  the  new  life.  That  "  the  losing  one's  life"  (ipv^v  drroheoai)  can 
mean  not  merely  the  loss  of  bodily  life  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  is  evi- 
dent, partly  from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  apostles  did  not  die  by 
persecution,  while  yet  their  blameless  continuance  in  life  cannot  be 
set  down  to  their  disadvantage  ;  and  partly  because  we  may  con- 
ceive even  of  death  by  persecutions  which,  originating  (as  not  un- 
frequently  happened)  in  vanity  or  fanaticism,  did  not  correspond  to 
the  present  requirements.  The  losing  one's  life  therefore  can  be  un- 
derstood only  in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  it  is  only  by  such  a  death  that 
the  bodily  death  is  sanctified.  In  the  expression  VW;CT,  the  significa- 
tion soul  and  life  are  again  blended  together.  (Compare  the  re- 
marks on  Matth.  vi.  25).  In  this  passage,  then,  a  twofold  soul  is 
spoken  of,  of  which  one  is  lost,  if  the  other  be  preserved.  If  we 
translate  V^7/  by  Ufa,  it  implies  a  twofold  existence,  a  higher  and  a 
lower,  between  which  man  has  the  choice.  (The  same  thought  is 
expressed  in  the  same  words  in  Matth.  xvi.  24,  25,  and  in  John  xii.  25. 
Instead  of  find  (evpioneiv'),  John,  however,  has  love  (0{/ieZv),  which  is 
more  intelligible  ',find  (evpiaiceiv),  here  signifies  to  gain,  to  attain  to}* 
The  passage  will  become  most  distinct  by  being  paraphrased  thus  :  6 
(aaQKiKrfv)  I/W^TJV,  dno^eaet  avr^v  (sc.  TTvev^ariKrlv)  :  KOI  6 
TTJV  i^v^r/v  (aapKticfjv),  evprjaei  avrfjv  (Kvev^ariKriv) — he  that 
findeth  his  (fleshly)  life  shall  lose  it  (i.  e.,  his  spiritual  life)  :  and  he 
that  loseth  his  (fleshly)  life,  shall  find  it  (i.  e.,  his  spiritual  life).  That 
which  constitutes  true  personal  identity  (the  ego)  remains  the  same, 
but,  in  the  exercise  of  true  self-denial,  it  becomes  dead  to  sin ;  the 

*  Compare  Hebrews  x.  39,  where  the  words  tire :  Trepnrot7iaif  tf>vx^f 


412  MATTHEW  X.  39. 

unbelieving  man,  on  the  contrary,  remains  in  his  natural  state  of 
being,  and  the  germ  of  the  higher  life  can  never  attain  to  dominion 
in  him.  The  expression  here  made  use  of  by  our  Redeemer  is  most 
simply  explained  by  supposing  that  the  soul  of  man  is  conceived  as 
standing  between  two  powers,  the  influence  of  which  he  may  receive 
within  himself,  and  by  means  of  which  he  may  be  transformed  into 
their  nature.  Now,  as  man  by  nature  is  more  especially  exposed  to 
the  one  (the  evil  power),  the  work  of  renovation  implies  the  renun- 
ciation of  the  old  sinful  life  which  has  become  part  of  the  man,  and, 
instead  of  it,  the  entrance  into  the  new  life  of  light.  This  transition 
is  a  death  ;  but,  out  of  this  death  a  new  and  higher  life  springs  up. 
The  addition  of  Zveicev  ipov,for  my  sake,  is  of  importance,  inasmuch 
as  it  opposes  itself  to  all  self-devised  means  of  sanctification  and  per- 
fecting of  spiritual  life.  A  crucifying  of  the  flesh,  and  self-denial 
undertaken  for  one's  own  sake,  for  one's  own  perfecting,  are  an  abom- 
ination in  the  sight  of  our  Lord,  since  they  are  always  in  such  a 
case,  the  proofs  of  secret  presumption  and  pride.*  On  the  con- 
trary, they  must  be  done  from  love  to  Jesus,  from  a  principle  of 

*  The  religions  of  Asia,  especially  Buddhism,  prominently  point  out  and  enjoin  the 
duty  of  self-denial ;  but  as  it  is  practiced  out  of  Jesus,  and  without  the  perfect  ideal  of 
holiness  in  man,  it  leads  to  the  most  eccentric  and  foolish  exlu'bitions.  The  addition, 
therefore,  of  Iveicev  tyov  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  precept  of  self-denial,  and 
furnishes,  at  the  same  time,  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  divine  dignity  of  Jesus ;  for  it 
would  have  been  the  highest  presumption  on  his  part  to  require,  that  all  things  should  be 
counted  but  loss  for  his  sake,  unless  he  had  been  higher  than  all  created  beings.  In  the 
work  of  J.  J.  Schmidt  (TJeber  die  iiltere  religiose,  politische  und  literarische  Bildungsges- 
chichte  der  Vb'lker  Miltelasiens.  Petersburg,  1824),  several  characteristic  features  of 
such  false  self-denial  are  communicated.  "Shaggiamuni  (the  Buddha  of  the  Mongol 
tribes),  when  in  the  form  of  a  king's  son,  once  met  on  his  walk  a  tigress  with  her  young, 
nearly  dead  of  hunger.  Penetrated  with  compassion,  and  there  being  nothing  at  hand  to 
refresh  and  revive  her,  he  withdrew  himself,  under  some  pretext,  from  his  retinue,  went 
up  to  the  tigress,  and  laid  himself  down  before  her,  that  he  might  be  torn  in  pieces  by 
her.  But,  perceiving  that  she  was  too  much  exhausted  to  be  able  to  injure  him,  he  first 
made  incisions  in  his  skin,  and  allowed  her  to  lick  up  the  blood  which  flowed  from  the 
wounds,  whereby  she  was  so  much  strengthened,  that  she  was  able  to  devour  him  alto- 
gether." What  a  caricature,  compared  with  the  sight  presented  by  the  life  of  a  true  fol- 
lower of  Christ,  walking  in  true,  genuine,  Christian  self-denial !  The  duty  was  conceived 
of  in  a  far  more  worthy  manner,  by  the  nobler  Mahommedan  mystics,  especially  by 
Dshelaleddin  Rumi,  who  thus  beautifully  expresses  the  necessity  of  the  death  of  the  old 
man,  in  order  that  the  new  man  may  be  brought  to  life  : 

Death  ends  indeed  the  cares  of  h'fe, 
Yet,  shudders  life  when  death  comes  near; 
And  such  the  fond  heart's  death-like  strife 
When  first  the  loved  one  does  appear. 
For,  where  true  love  is  wakened,  dies 
The  tyrant  self,  that  despot  dark. 
Eejoice  then,  that  in  death  he  lies, 
And  breathe  morn's  free  air,  with  the  lark. 

But  certainly  it  must  be  admitted,  that,  between  the  conception  of  the  duty,  and  the 
realization  of  it  in  the  h'fe,  there  is  a  wide  difference. 


MATTHEW  X.  39-42.  413 

obedience  to  him,  and  by  the  working  of  his  Spirit  ;  it  is  then  only 
that  they  bring  forth  beautiful  fruits,  and  produce  that  "holiness, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  (Heb.  xii.  14.)  The 
medium  between  indolence  on  the  one  hand,  and  self-righteous  ac- 
tivity on  the  other,  is  difficult  of  discovery  ;  but  the  author  of  the 
faith  must  here  also  be  himself  the  finisher  of  it.  (Heb.  xii.  2.) 

Yer.  40. — -As  a  consolation  under  the  difficulties  which  our  Lord 
has  set  before  his  disciples,  there  follows,  in  conclusion,  a  rich 
thought,  pointing  out  how  infinitely  dear  to  the  Lord  of  the  uni- 
verse are  the  combatants  for  truth.*  As  Christ  is  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Father,  so  he  considers  his  disciples  as  his  own  represen- 
tatives ;  whosoever,  therefore,  receives  the  disciples,  receives  the 
Lord  of  the  universe  himself.  (Mark  ix.  37.)  The  following  verses, 
however,  shew  that  6e%eadat,  receive,  must  be  taken  emphatically 
thus  :  "  whosoever  receives  you,  fully  conscious  of  what  you  are, 
and  for  the  sake  of  this  your  spiritual  character,  receives  God,"  and 
hence  derives  all  the  blessing  from  it,  which  is  conferred,  according 
to  the  history  of  the  Patriarchs,  by  a  visit  from  the  Lord.  There  is 
implied,  therefore,  in  the  receiving  (de^eoOai),  not  an  outward  receiv- 
ing merely  (hospitio  excipere),  but,  more  especially,  the  opening  of 
the  heart  and  of  the  whole  inner  life,  so  that  a  man  may  be  able 
to  receive  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  although  he  should  not  have 
where  to  lay  his  head. 

Ver.  41,  42. — But  in  order  to  place  in  its  true  light  the  great- 
ness of  the  glory  of  true  believers,  and  to  pourtray  the  blessedness 
of  those  who  receive  them,  the  Kedeemer  closes  with  a  remarkable 
parallel.  His  disciples,  the  representatives  of  the  principles  of  the 
new  Christian  life,  are  compared  by  him  to  the  Old  Testament 
saints,  prophets,  and  righteous  men  (-npo^rjraig  KOI  diKaioig),  and  he 
thus  infers,  that  as  much  as  the  former  stood  higher  than  the  latter, 
by  so  much  higher  and  more  glorious  would  be  their  reward.  As 
regards,  in  the  first  place,  the  gradation,  the  name  fuicpoi,  little  ones, 
here  given  to  believers,  is  remarkable.  We  might  here  refer  to  the 
Eabbinical  usus  loquendi,  according  to  which,  itoj?,  small,  forms  the 
contrast  to  *i,  great,  the  latter  signifying  teacher,  master;  the  for- 
mer, disciple,  servant.  But  this  does  not  meet  the  case  ;  the  ex- 
pression seems  intended  to  indicate  a  peculiarity  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus.  (Comp.  Matth.  xviii.  6.)  According  to  the  context,  it  would 
seem  to  point  out,  first,  the  needy  condition  of  the  disciples,  who, 
like  helpless  children,  seem  to  be  given  over  as  a  prey  to  misery  in  this 
world,  but  are  sustained  by  the  help  of  the  Father  from  above. 

*  The  reverse  side  of  this  picture  is  pointed  out  by  Luke  x.  16,  in  the  words  6  tyt 
ddertiv  K.  T.  A.  Allusions  to  this  thought  are  also  met  with  in  the  Rabbinical  writings; 
e.  </.,  si  quis  recipit  viros  doctos,  idem  est  ac  si  reciperet  ScJiechinam,  i  e.,  manifcstationem 
summi  numinis.  Comp.  Schottgen  on  this  passage. 


414  MATTHEW  X.  41,  42. 

Next,  it  has  reference  to  the  child-like,  innocent,  and,  specially,  the 
humble  feeling  of  the  regenerate,  who,  although  exalted  and  glo- 
rious, are  yet  conscious  of  their  glory  without  any  feeling  of  pre- 
sumption. (The  passage  in  chap.  xvii.  6,  explains  this  more  fully.) 
This  humbleness  (iMcpo-rjg')  of  the  disciples,  is  contrasted  with  the 
Old  Testament  piety,  which,  although  inferior,  yet  bears  a  some- 
what more  pretentious  character  ;  its  two  principal  forms  are  pointed 
out,  viz.,  npotyrjTeia,  prophecy,  and  diKaioavvq,  righteousness.  In  the 
former,  is  specially  displayed  the  fulness  of  illumination  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  which  however,  as  in  the  case  of  Jonah,  might  well 
be  combined  with  meagre  personal  attainments  ;  in  the  latter,  pre- 
ciseness  in  obeying  the  law.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on  Luke  i.  6.) 
Eighteousness  appears  here  as  the  higher  gradation  of  religious  life 
under  the  Old  Testament,  inasmuch  as  it  presupposed  a  higher  de- 
gree of  personal  attainment  than  prophecy.  But,  above  these  two, 
stands  the  New  Testament  life,  in  which  an  inward  regeneration  is 
manifested  in  the  outward  life.  These  three  gradations  of  charac- 
ter, prophet  (npofjtTJTrj^),  righteous  man  (diitaiog),  and  little  one  (funpog), 
are  brought  into  connexion  with  those  who  receive  them,  and  to  every 
one  is  promised  the  [iiaOog,  pay,  reward,  of  him  whom  he  receives. 
(On  the  signification  of  fuo66$,  comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  v.  12.) 
The  term  is,  in  a  legal  point  of  view,  wholly  appropriate ;  but  in 
the  evangelical  point  of  view,  only  in  so  far  as  love,  which  appears 
in  it  as  the  active  principle,  carries  its  reward  in  itself.  But  as  a 
condition  of  the  reward,  it  is  farther  added  in  what  manner  the  re- 
ception is  to  take  place — dg  ovopa  npotyTJTov,  diicaiov,  ^adrjrov,  in  the 
name,  etc.  This  el$  ovopa,  in  the  name,  contains  the  key  to  the 
whole  rather  obscure  passage  ;  it  is  identical  with  the  Hebrew  sea 
(it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  an-  exchange  of  the  prepositions  elg 
and  iv),  so  that  the  name  signifies  the  character  and  true  nature  of 
the  person  to  be  received.  Hence  the  passage  is  full  of  rich  mean- 
ing. It  points  out  the  moral  principle,  that  every  action  must  be 
measured  by  the  disposition  from  which  it  proceeds,  and  that  the 
disposition  is  the  result  of  the  whole  inward  state  of  man.  Hence, 
it  is  not  the  isolated  act  of  receiving,  which  is  considered  as  the 
ground  of  the  reward,  but  the  disposition  of  soul  from  which  the 
act  proceeds  ;  and  the  reception  itself,  turns  not  more  on  the  per- 
son received,  than  on  the  clearness  with  which  his  true  character  is 
apprehended.  Hence  the  sense  of  these  remarkable  words  is  this  : 
whoever  receives  an  Old  Testament  prophet,  for  the  sake  of  his  spi- 
ritual character,  and  is  endowed  with  the  ability  of  receiving  him, 
and  recognising  him  as  such,  will  be  rewarded  according  to  his  Old 
Testament  position ;  the  same  takes  place  with  regard  to  the  right- 
eous ;  but  he  who  receives  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  i.  e.,  a  child  of  God, 
and  a  citizen  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  and  refreshes  him  by  the 


MATTHEW  X.  41,  42 ;  XI.  1.  415 

merest  trifle  (a  weaker  counterpart  of  de%eodai) — who  is  thus  able  to 
recognise  in  him,  under  his  insignificant  outward  appearance,  the 
effulgence  of  that  which  is  divine — who  is  able  to  love  it  and  to  do 
good  to  it,  in  its  representatives,  he  thereby  shews  that  he  has  dis- 
positions in  harmony  with  this  New  Testament  dispensation,  and 
hence  will  also  receive  the  reward  which,  under  it,  is  certain.  But 
this  reward  is  an  eternal  one  (ov  ^  d-rroheoy  rbv  ptadbv  avrov)  ;  and 
in  this  it  is  implied,  that  the  Old  Testament  awards  to  its  saints 
promises  of  a  more  earthly  character.  The  thought  is  highly  spiri- 
tual ;  and  hence  has  been  so  frequently  misunderstood  by  inter- 
preters. For  it  evidently  involves  also  the  thought,  that  while  he 
who  occupies  a  lower  position,  can  never  be  received  in  a  higher 
character,  because  the  higher  life  is  wanting  in  him  ;  yet  the  higher 
may  be  received  in  a  lower  character.  The  disciple  of  Jesus  has 
already  passed  through  the  law.  Many  a  benevolent,  pious  Jew, 
might  therefore  receive  the  apostles  as  prophets  or  righteous  men, 
because,  from  his  point  of  view,  he  could  not  apprehend  them  more 
profoundly.  But  he  who,  in  the  messengers  of  Christ,  was  able  to 
recognise  their  new  and  nobler  character,  and  from  love  to  this,  re- 
ceived them,  he  received  from  them  the  full,  rich  blessing  of  the  new 
birth  ;  while  those,  also,  who  occupied  the  lower  ground,  if  turning 
toward  them  with  a  heart  of  love,  woukl  receive  an  appropriate  re- 
ward. Hence  the  little  ones  appear  here  as  bestowing  blessings  in 
every  direction  ;  indeed  "  as  dying,  but  yet  living  ;  as  poor,  and  yet 
making  many  rich  ;  as  having  nothing,  and  yet  possessing  all 
things."  (2  Cor.  vi.  9,  10.) 


§  16.  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  SENDS  His  DISCIPLES   TO  JESUS.     Dis- 

COUKSES   OF   JESUS   ON   THE   OCCASION   OF   THIS   MISSION. 
(Matth.  xi.  1-30;  Luke  vii.  18-35;  x.  13-15,  21,  22.) 

Ver.  1. — Matthew  closes  the  preceding  discourse  with  the  words  : 
diardaauv  roiq  dudeica  ^tad^ralg,  instructing  his  twelve  disciples,  and 
thereby  clearly  indicates  the  wish  that  the  preceding  discourse 
should  be  understood  as  designed  for  the  disciples  who  were  sent 
forth.  Of  the  journey  itself,  however,  he  says  nothing.  Luke  ix. 
10,  on  the  contrary,  mentions  the  return  in  the  same  way  as  in  chap. 
x.  17,  he  mentions  the  return  of  the  seventy.  With  an  indefinite 
Kal  ijKvero,  and  it  came  to  pass,  Matthew  proceeds  to  another  sub- 
ject, viz.,  the  report  of  the  question  put  by  John  the  Baptist 
through  his  disciples.  The  same  report  is  connected,  in  Luke  vii. 
18,  with  the  history  of  the  raising  of  the  widow  of  Nain's  son,  but 
likewise  very  loosely,  by  the  general  formula  :  And  they  reported  to 


416  MATTHEW  XI.  1,  2. 


John,  etc.  (KOI  dnriyyeihav  'Iwavvq  K.  r.  A).  But  we  are  struck  by 
the  exceedingly  exact  agreement  of  the  Evangelists  in  this  section, 
not  only  in  single  expressions  (as  ver.  23),  hut  also  in  the  Old  Test- 
ament quotation  from  Malachi  iii.  1  (Matth.  xi.  10).  The  LXX. 
give  an  exact  translation  of  the  Hehrew  text  ;  hut  both  the  Evan- 
gelists differ  alike  from  hoth.*  We  have  here  again,  in  Matthew, 
a  discourse  composed  of  various  elements,  whilst  Luke  gives  in  an- 
other more  definite  connexion,  that  which  is  here  brought  together. 
From  the  narrative  of  the  mission  of  the  two  disciples  of  John,  Mat- 
thew only  takes  occasion  to  report  the  discourses  of  Jesus  which 
describe  the  different  positions  of  the  people,  with  respect  to 
him.  Jesus  was  as  little  understood  by  the  proud,  as  was  John 
the  Baptist.  The  humble  recognised  the  divine  element  under 
even  the  most  varied  forms,  because  indeed,  it  was  only  this  of 
which  they  were  in  search.  With  this,  chap.  xii.  connects  itself 
very  suitably. 

Ver.  2.  —  From  the  mission  of  the  disciples  of  John,  we  are  led 
to  make  some  inquiries  regarding  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  Bap- 
tist. He  appears  here  in  prison  (at  Machaerus  according  to  Jose- 
phus,  Arch,  xviii.  5);  it  is  only  in  a  subsequent  chapter  (xiv.  3  seq.) 
that  Matthew,  by  way  of  supplementing,  gives  the  necessary  infor- 
mation about  his  imprisonment.  The  Baptist  hears  in  his  prison  of 
the  works  of  Jesus,  and  is  therefore  induced  to  send  to  him  two 
disciples,  with  the  question  :  Art  thou  he  that  cometh,  or  do  we 
look  for  another  ?  (oi)  el  6  ip%6[i£vo£,  rj  Zrepov  TrpofftfoKw^v)  ;  (The  ex- 
pression 6  tyxofievog,  he  that  cometh,  has  a  fixed  doctrinal  significa- 
tion, viz.,  the  Messiah,  perhaps  from  the  passage  in  Psalm  cxviii. 
26,  njn-  atca  xsn  STS"i3,f  blessed  is  he  that  cometh,  etc.  In  Heb.  x. 
37,  Christ,  with  reference  even  to  his  second  coming  (trapovoia)  is 
called  6  £p%6nevo<;,  i.  e.,  he  at  whose  future  coming  all  prophecy  will 
be  fulfilled.)  The  question  of  the  Baptist  seems,  then,  to  indicate 
an  uncertainty  as  to  whether  or  not  Jesus  was  the  longed-for  Sa- 
viour ;  and  such  a  question  must  certainly  appear  very  strange  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Baptist,  after  the  strong  declarations  of  his  faith, 
and  after  the  disclosures  made  to  him  concerning  his  relation  to 
Jesus.  (Compare  Matth.  iii.  and  specially  John  i.  23.)  Hence  many 
have  been  disposed  to  consider  this  question  as  intended  to  strengthen 
the  faith  of  his  disciples  who  were  beginning  to  faint;  others,  as 
containing  a  call  upon  Jesus  to  hasten  the  carrying  out  of  his  plans. 
The  former  opinion  has  absolutely  no  weight  ;  for  the  disciples  of 
the  Baptist  would  have  been  completely  satisfied  by  the  decided 

*  On  this  point  compare  Matth.  iii.  3  ;  Mark  i.  1. 

f  Hengsteriberg  (Christology,  voL  iii.,  p.  292,  et  seq.)  derives,  on  very  plausible  grounds, 
the  expression  from  Malachi  iii.  1  ;  but  it  is  very  probable  that  several  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  concur  in  giving  it  this  fixed  doctrinal  signification. 


MATTHEW  XI.  2.  417 

declarations  of  their  master  (John  i.  29),  as  we  see  in  the  case  of 
the  apostles.  The  second  opinion  is  not  without  truth.  John 
might,  in  fact,  regard  Jesus  as  proceeding  too  cautiously,  inasmuch 
as  he  did  not  understand  his  secret  working  upon  the  souls  of  men. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that  John,  if  his  own  faith  remained 
unshaken,  should  have  merely  wished  to  urge  our  Lord  to  a  different 
mode  of  procedure  ;  the  very  form  of  the  question  obliges  us  to 
refer  it  rather  to  the  state  of  mind  of  the  interrogator  himself. 
For,  if  we  look  at  the  passage  before  us  with  unprejudiced  eye,  it 
appears  more  natural  to  seek  for  the  ground  of  the  question  in  the 
mind  of  John  himself.  Our  inward  experience  can  alone  teach  us 
to  understand  such  events.  In  the  life  of  every  believer,  there  occur 
moments  of  temptation,  in  which  even  the  firmest  conviction  may 
be  shaken :  nothing  is  more  simple  than  to  imagine  such  a  time 
of  darkness  and  abandonment  by  the  Spirit,  in  the  life  even  of 
John.0  We  are  too  much  accustomed  to  think  of  the  character  oi 
Scripture  saints  only  under  a  certain  form,  and  as  liable  to  no 
change  ;  but  (excepting  the  Lord  himself,  whose  character  was 
peculiar,  and  must  be  regarded  per  se),  it  is  evident  that  internal 
changes  of  light  and  darkness  must  be  supposed  in  all  individuals, 
even  when  such  are  not  reported  ;  inasmuch  as,  by  this  very  strug- 
gle, the  life  of  the  saint  is  perfected.  Hence,  wherever  communica- 
tions simple  and  clear  are  brought  before  us  as  the  one  in  question 
concerning  John,  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for  doubting.  In  his 
gloomy  prison  at  Machaerus,  the  man  of  God  was  no  doubt  sur- 

*  That  after  the  events  recorded,  Matth.  iii.  16,  and  John  L  33,  John  the  Baptist  could 
have  come  to  any  real  doubt  of  the  Messiaship  of  Jesus,  is  scarcely  conceivable,  and 
seems  to  be  denied  by  the  Saviour,  Matth.  xi.  7.  He  did  not  doubt  his  Messiahship,  nor 
was  he  impatient  that  Jesus  did  not  by  miracle  deliver  him  from  prison  :  but  the  Saviour's 
free,  unlegal,  New  Testament  mode  of  working,  he  could  not  comprehend.  In  his  opinion 
Jesus  should  have  carried  out  the  outward  separation  of  the  people,  commenced  in  his 
own  ministry,  instead  of  casting  the  pearls  of  his  miracles  and  teachings  before  tlie  un- 
discriminating  mass.  This  misapprehension  he  embodies  in  the  question,  "  Art  thou  really 
he  ?  From  thy  mode  of  working  one  would  hardly  believe  it  1"  To  this  corresponds  the  re- 
ply of  our  Lord  (v.  4),  and  to  this  the  language  in  which  Jesus  (v.  7,  8)  defends  John  against 
the  suspicion  that  like  a  shaken  reed  he  now  doubted  what  he  had  once  testified,  or 
like  a  weakling  had  become  impatient  of  his  imprisonment.  To  this  finally  answers  the 
declaration  (v.  10,  ff.),  that  the  greatest  under  the  Old  dispensation  failed  to  apprehend 
the  spirit  of  the  New,  in  which  all  legal  outward  forms  are  broken  up  by  the  violence 
with  which  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  seized  upon. — (E.)  The  correct  view  seems  to  me 
fully  given  neither  by  Olshausen  or  Ebrard.  That  the  question  is  not  one  of  simple 
inquiry  for  information  is  clear.  That  John  was  in  a  measure  stumbled  at  the  pro- 
ceeding of  our  Lord,  whose  Messiahship  he  did  not  question,  seems  equally  clear.  But 
that  John  was  stumbled  rather  at  our  Saviour's  slowness  in  assuming  to  himself  that 
temporal  dominion  which  doubtless  formed  a  part  of  his  view  of  the  function  of  the 
Messiah,  than  at  his  free,  urdegal  procedure,  seems  to  me  almost  certain.  The  miracles 
to  which  the  Saviour  points  in  self- vindication,  contrast  most  naturally  with  false  con- 
ceptions of  outward  greatness  and  glory,  which  John  may  have  entertained.  The  fol- 
lowing discourse  adapts  itself  equally  well  to  this  view. — [EL 

VOL.  I.— 27 


418  MATTHEW  XI.  2-5. 

prised  by  a  dark  hour,  in  which  he  was  struck  by  the  quiet  unob- 
trusive ministry  of  Christ,  and  began  to  doubt  the  experience  of 
which  he  had  heretofore  been  the  subject.  This  is  clearly  implied 
in  the  words  of  Jesus  :  Blessed  is  Tie  ivhosoever,  etc.  (paKdpiog  lartv 
8$-  iav  jwr)  anavdahiadq  KV  t-juot)  (ver.  6),  which  contain,  at  once,  cen- 
sure and  comfort.  For,  indeed,  it  would  have  been  a  sad  thing  for 
the  poor  prisoner  if  he  had  not  stood  firm  in  the  hour  of  tempta- 
tion, if  he  really  had  been  offended;  but  now  he  was  only  tempted 
to  be  so — and  blessed  is  the  man  that  endureth  temptation  (James 
i.  12).  But  as,  without  a  struggle,  there  is  no  victory  for  sinful 
man,  so  the  Baptist  also  could  not  be  spared  such  a  struggle.  The 
very  circumstance,  however,  of  his  having  sent  to  Jesus  himself  for 
enquiry,  shews  that  he  endured  the  temptation  and  conquered. 
That  he  asked  him  in  this  manner  proves  that  he  was  tempted  ; 
but  that,  in  his  temptation,  he  asked  no  one  else,  but  applied  to  the 
Saviour  himself,  proves  his  faith ;  and  so  much  the  more,  as  the 
free  life  of  the  Redeemer,  so  different  from  his  own,  must  have  ap- 
peared rather  strange  to  the  austere  preacher  of  repentance.  (Com- 
pare the  remarks  on  Matth.  xi.  19.)  The  question  of  John  is  no- 
thing else  than  the  prayer,  "  Lord,  I  believe,  help  thou  mine  unbelief ;" 
and  this  prayer  is  answered  by  our  gracious  Lord.  Whosoever  asks 
God  whether  he  be  God  ;  whosoever  asks  the  Saviour  whether  he 
be  the  Saviour,  is  in  the  right  way  to  overcome  every  temptation — 
it  is  only  thus  that  he  can  attain  certainty.  Hence  it  is,  that  the 
words  of  Jesus  concerning  John  (ver.  7,  seq.)  form  no  contradiction 
to  the  supposition  that  he  sent  the  messengers  in  an  hour  of  severe 
temptation.  He  even  thereby  proved  that  he  was  not  a  reed  shaken 
by  every  wind,  but  that  he  stood  firm  and  unshaken  amid  all  storms. 
But  when  there  is  no  storm,  how  can  firmness  be  proved  ?  It  was 
then,  during  the  time  of  his  shining,  and  when  the  fulness  of  the 
Spirit  dwelt  on  him,  that  God  made  use  of  the  Baptist  for  Ms  own 
great  purposes  among  mankind  ;  but  in  the  time  of  his  poverty  and 
abandonment,  God  perfected  him  within  himself. 

Ver.  4,  5. — With  reference  to  prophetic  passages,  such  as  Isaiah 
xxxv.  5,  6  ;  Ix.  1,  Jesus  answers  the  question  by  pointing  to  his 
deeds  ;  the  messengers  find  the  Redeemer  in  the  midst  of  his  mes- 
sianic labours  ;  all  that  they  can  report  is  that  he  is  redeeming. 
They  saw  his  outward  agency  ;  the  spiritual  significancy  of  those 
outward  miracles  his  discourse  unveiled  to  them.  The  bodily  heal- 
ing but  prefigured  the  healing  of  the  soul.  (Concerning  7r-w\;6f, 
comp.  Matth.  v.  13.)  EwyyeA/£«r&M,  has  here  the  signification  of 
"hearing  the  gospel,"  "  receiving  the  glad  tidings."  The  passage, 
Isaiah  Ixi.  1,  which  is  here  referred  to,  forbids  the  interpretation, 
"  the  poor  preach  the  gospel."  Indeed,  a  glorious  mode  of  proceed- 
ing !  alone  fitted  to  convince  of  his  messianic  dignity.  Not  a  word 


MATTHEW  XI.  4-7.  .  419 


of  John  individually  —  only  the  paKapiog  toriv,  blessed  is  he,  reaches 
him  for  consolation  and  warning.  But  if  it  be  asked,  why  the  Lord 
did  not  speak  more  fully,  we  answer  that  such  struggles  must  be 
fought  only  in  the  inner  man  ;  the  question  was  to  the  Lord  a  sign 
of  the  approaching  victory.  He  left  him,  therefore,  entirely  to  him- 
self, without  further  interference  with  him.  (Concerning  oicavdaM- 
Qadai,  comp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xviii.  8.) 

Ver.  7.  —  But  before  the  people,  who  might  easily  have  misun- 
derstood such  a  question,  Jesus  expressed  himself  more  fully, 
and  depicted  to  them  the  noble  image  of  the  stern  warrior,  that, 
on  the  one  hand,  they  might  know  what  they  might  expect  from 
him,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  might  also  recognise  what  he  could 
not  give  to  them.  Some  of  the  disciples  of  John,  who  were  pre- 
sent, may  have  given  immediate  occasion  to  these  remarks.  Of 
himself,  he  maintains  a  calm  and  dignified  silence  ;  upon  all  he 
impresses  the  words  :  Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  not  be  offended 
in  me.  The  manner  in  which  our  Lord,  from  the  7th  to  the  9th 
verse  speaks  to  those  surrounding  him  concerning  John,  is  some- 
what obscure.  It  is  difficult  to  apprehend  in  their  right  relation  his 
various  reproving  questions.  The  reed  shaken  by  the  wind  (Kakapos 
vnb  dvfyov  oa^evofievo^,  may  be  figuratively  understood  of  a  light- 
minded  man  (as  in  Ephes.  iv.  14  ;  Heb.  xiii.  9)  ;  or,  without  any 
figure,  of  the  reed  which  grew  on  the  banks  of  the  river  Jordan, 
and  with  which  the  wind  sported.  In  the  latter  case,  the  sense 
would  be  the  following  :  "  You  must  certainly  have  had  some  ob-. 
ject  in  view,  in  hastening  to  the  wilderness  :  it  can  certainly  not 
have  been  to  get  a  view  of  some  empty,  every-day  object,  as,  a 
shaking  reed,  or  soft  garments."  The  third  question  must  then  in-r 
deed  denote  the  proper  object  ;  they  wished  to  see  a  prophet,  and 
that  John  the  Baptist  certainly  was.  Yet  the  thought  in  this  shape 
would  be  rather  meagre  —  it  would  have  been  better,  in  that  case,  to 
put  only  the  single  question,  "  You  wished  to  see  a  prophet,  did 
you  not  ?  well  then,  you  have  seen  him,  and  the  greatest  one  too  ; 
only  obey  him  !"  But,  if  we  turn  to  the  other  mode  of  interpreta- 
tion, we  here  too  meet  with  difficulties.  The  thought,  "have 
you  gone  out  to  see  a  light-minded  or  luxurious  man  ?"  is  too 
harsh,  for  who  goes  to  the  wilderness  for  such  a  purpose?  Or 
who  could  imagine  John  to  be  such  an  one?  But,  if  it  be 
said  that  the  unsuitable  question  was  only  intended  to  shew  that 
they  certainly  thought  no  such  thing,  the  question  again  is,  For 
what  purpose  are  these  things  brought  forward  ?  The  passage  con- 
tinues dark,  until  verse  16,  seq*  are  compared.  That  passage  shew8 
that  Jesus,  in  his  questions,  has  only  in  view  the  character  of  the 
mutitude,  and  portrays  their  oion  contradictions.  They  evidently 
went  in  crowds  to  the  wilderness  to  see  a  prophet  (as  if  there  were 


420  MATTHEW  XI.  7-11. 

any  thing  in  a  prophet  to  be  seen,  while  they  did  not  desire  to  hear 
him) ;  they  might  well  have  known  how  a  true  prophet  would  man- 
ifest himself  to  them,  and  yet  when  they  perceived  his  moral  ear- 
nestness, they  did  not  like  him  ;  their  impure  hearts  had  longed 
for  a  prophet  after  their  own  taste.  Our  Saviour,  who  searches  the 
hearts  of  men  with  eyes  of  fire,  lays  open  to  them  this  their  incon- 
sistency, in  hastening  out  to  the  prophet,  and  then  desiring  that  he 
might  not  be  what  he  is,  and  might  be  something  which  he  cannot 
be,  viz.,  such  an  one  as  themselves.  They  themselves  are  the  reed 
shaken  by  the  wind,  as  is  fully  demonstrated  in  verses  16,  17. 
"  You  imagined  that  you  would  find  a  pseudo-prophet,  one  who 
would  yield  to  all  the  caprices  of  sin,  and  one  altogether  like  your- 
selves ?  You  imagined  that  you  would  find  a  sensual  teacher,  flat- 
tering your  sensuality  ?  you  imagined  that  you  would  behold  a 
prophet,  just  as  your  fancies  had  depicted  him  to  you,  mighty, 
glorious,  but  sparing  sin  ?  Indeed  you  have  obtained  one,  but  one 
who  is  another  Elijah."  Then  follows,  first,  a  farther  delineation 
of  the  Baptist,  and  of  the  character  of  his  ministry,  with  which  is 
connected  a  parallel  between  Jesus  and  the  Baptist — with  the  re- 
mark, that  the  same  character  of  the  multitude  that  did  not  like 
John,  had  taken  offence  at  him,  although  his  mode  of  life  was  alto- 
gether different  from  that  of  the  Baptist ;  and  they  had  been 
offended  at  him  for  this  sole  reason,  that  they  could  never,  in  any 
form  of  the  divine,  whatever  it  might  be,  find  the  likeness  of  their 
sinful  selves  ;  and  that  it  was  only  themselves  they  were  everywhere 
seeking.  The  haughty  judges  of  the  children  of  light,  who  dislike 
in  them^now  this,  and  now  that,  must,  therefore,  before  all  things, 
come  down  to  humility  ;  the  babes  (vrjmoi,  ver.  25)  who  possess  it, 
for  this  reason  also,  apprehend  the  divine  element  in  its  most  varied 
forms  of  manifestation,  because  they  never  anywhere  care  about  the 
form,  but  always  and  everywhere  about  the  substance. 

Ver.  9. — The  description  of  John  the  Baptist  begins  with  the 
words  "  Yea,  and  more  than  a  prophet"  (val  KOI  Trepiooorepov  •KQO$T\- 
TOW).  That  the  Baptist  was  more  than  a  prophet  (i.  e.,  that  in  the 
clearness  of  his  view,  he  had  attained  to  a  point  beyond  that  of  the 
prophets),  is  inferred  from  Malachi  iii.  1,  in  which  a  messenger  is 
described  as  preparing  the  way  for  the  Messiah.  (Concerning  this, 
cornp.  the  remarks  on  Matth.  iii.  3.)  By  means  of  this  office,  the 
Baptist  received  a  peculiar  position,  inasmuch  as  he  occupied  the 
intermediate  space  between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  ;  yet  in 
the  general  direction  of  his  life  he  still  belonged  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  only  formed  the  link  by  which  the  two  spheres  of  religious 
life  are  connected.  (Comp.  what  has  been  remarked  on  Matth.  iii.  21.) 

Ver.  11. — But  the  Redeemer  proceeds  yet  farther  in  his  exaltation 
of  the  Baptist  ;  as  he  had  placed  him  above  all  the  prophets,  so  he 


MATTHEW  XI.  11.  421 

places  him  now  above  all  the  yevvrjTot  yvvaiKtiv,  born  of  women. 
The  words  iyeipeaQai  KV  =  a  &->j?n,  have  the  signification  "to  be 
raised  up,"  "  to  be  called  forth"  for  a  particular  purpose,  from  a 
great  multitude  ;  so  that  we  may  supply  VTTO  TOV  ©eot>,  of  God  (John 
vii.  52). — TevvTjTog  ywatKog,  born  of  women  =  •  «»«  n&?,  Job  xiv.  1  ; 
xv.  14.  (revvrjfWTa  yvvauc&v  signifies  man  in  general,  but  with  the 
accessory  idea  of  frailty  or  impurity.)  The  expression,  therefore, 
has  its  contrast  in  the  phrase  yevvT/ro?  t'/t  TOV  Qeov}  born  of  God;  thus 
were  the  first  man  and  Christ,  and  thus  are  believers,  who  are  be- 
gotten of  the  Spirit,  through  Him.  (John  i.  13.)  To  this  contrast 
the  closing  words  of  the  verse  refer,  in  which  the  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  placed  above  John.  (Concerning  the  expression 
pKpo-epof  tv  T%  /3.,  least,  etc.,  compare  what  has  been  remarked  on 
Matth.  v.  19,  where  the  ^yaq  and  E^d^iorog  iv  ry  (3.  are  contrasted 
with  each  other.)  Even  in  the  lowest  degree  of  the  Christian  life, 
which  has  been  brought  to  mankind  by  Christ  Jesus,  man  stands 
higher  than  John.*  Concerning  this  remarkable  thought,  it  must, 
in  the  first  place,  be  well  observed,  that  the  being  greater  (jiei^uv 
elvat),  ascribed  here  by  the  Redeemer  to  those  living  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  must  be  understood  in  a  Christian  sense,  so  that  even  the 
greatest  is,  at  the  same  time,  the  humblest,  divested  of  all  selfish- 
ness and  sin,  entirely  in  the  sense  of  Matth.  xx.  25,  26.  Those  in 
the  kingdom  of  God,  occupy  in  so  far,  therefore,  a  higher  ground,  as 
the  possibility  of  attaining  this  position,  of  being  divested  of  self, 
lies  within  their  reach.  This  is  therefore  the  general  character  of 
all  the  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  the  difference  between 
them  consists  only,  partly  in  the  degree  in  which  they  have  received 
into  all  the  faculties  and  powers  of  their  nature  the  principle  of 
higher  life,  freeing  from  all  sin,  and  hence  also  from  pride  ;  partly 
also,  in  the  more  or  less  copious  endowment  with  those  powers 
which  determine  the  varied  spheres  of  activity  in  individuals. 
Again,  it  is  self-evident  tl\at  the  being  in  the  kingdom  of  God  can- 
not here  refer  to  every  one  who  is  a  member  of  the  visible  church  of 
Christ ;  inasmuch  as  there  are  many  bad  fishes  in  the  large  net  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  (Matth.  xiii.  47  seq.)  The  expression  is 
rather  limited  here  by  the  preceding  ye^virrol  yvvaiKu>v}  born  of 
women;  whence  we  must  infer,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  con- 
tains only  the  bom  of  God.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  here,  then, 
the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  ideal  conception.  This  community,  with 
all  its  members,  our  Redeemer,  in  verse  11,  places  above  that  com- 
munity to  which  John,  with  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  belonged. 

*  The  comparative  fxiKporepof  needs  not  to  be  taken  as  the  superlative.  Compare 
Winer's  Gr.  S.  221.  The  reference  of  the  expression  to  Jesus  himself:  "  I,  the  lesser  one, 
am  greater  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  than  he,"  is  evidently  quite  inadmissible.  It  would 
have  been  mock-humility,  if  Jesus  had  called  himself  less  than  John. 


422  MATTHEW  XI.  11. 

The  whole  passage,  therefore,  is  applicable  to  those  only  who  are 
truly  regenerated.  To  many  members  of  the  visible  church,  not 
even  a  position  equal  to  that  of  the  representatives  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament can  be  granted.  But  a  considerable  difficulty  still  adheres 
to  this  passage,  inasmuch  as  the  question  here  arises,  as  to  whether 
no  regeneration  took  place  at  all  under  the  Old  Testament.  To 
answer  this  question,  we  must  distinguish  between  regeneration 
in  a  narrower,  and  a  wider  sense.  In  the  narrower  sense,  the  ex- 
pression signifies  the  communication  of  a  higher  life  [of  Christ's 
glorified  humanity],  which  can  be  effected  only  through  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  outpouring  on  mankind  depended 
upon  the  glorification  of  Christ.  (John  vii.  39.)  In  this  more  con- 
fined sense  then,  the  regeneration  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  is  out 
of  the  question.  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  as  well  as  all  the  Old 
Testament  saints,  beheld  the  Kedeemer  only  as  Him  who  was  to 
come,  without  having  experienced  the  real  effects  of  his  power. 
(Heb.  xi.  13  ;  1  Pet.  i.  10-40.)  They  were,  therefore,  in  the  Sheol, 
and  attained  to  the  resurrection  only  through  Christ.  (Comp.  the 
remarks  on  Matth.  xxvii.  52,  53.)  In-  the  wider  sense,  however, 
every  important  and  eventful  change  in  the  inner  man  may  be  called 
regeneration,*  and  such  a  one  was  no  doubt  experienced  by  Abraham 
and  Jacob,  on  account  of  which,  and  especially  on  account  of  the 
new  name  given  to  them,  they  may  be  justly  regarded  as  types  of 
the  new  birth.  The  sense  of  the  words  "  There  hath  not  risen 
among  them  that  are  born  of  women  a  greater  than  John  the  Bap- 
tist," may,  accordingly,  be  still  more  exactly  determined.  It  is  not 
likely  that  Jesus  intended  to  subordinate  Abraham  and  Jacob  to  the 
Baptist ;  these  stand  not  only  as  the  ancestors,  according  to  the 
flesh,  of  the  people  of  God,  but  specially  also  as  the  fathers  of  all  the 
faithful,  in  a  far  brighter  splendour.  [Yet  in  their  relations  to  the 
salvation  of  the  New  Testament,  they  surely  stood  below  the  Bap- 
tist.] For,  among  individuals  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
sation,  various  degrees  of  attainment,  and  various  positions  may  be 
distinguished  as  cleafly  as  among  the  members  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment church.  A  distinction  between  prophets  and  righteous  men 
has  been  already  made  above.  (Matth.  x.  41.)  Here  we  might  to 
a  certain  degree,  find  a  third  class  alluded  to,  viz.,  the  regenerate 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Baptist  would  in  that  case,  be  repre- 

*  Better,  conversion  (E).  As  human  nature  is  substantially  the  same  in  all  ages, 
there  can  be,  it  would  seem,  no  radical  difference  in  the  process  by  which  men  in  differ- 
ent ages  are  brought  into  a  state  of  reconciliation  with  God.  There  must  always  have 
been  a  virtual  new  birth  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Under  the  old  dispensation 
his  workings  were  comparatively  limited  and  secret ;  under  the  new  he  was  poured  out 
in  such  abundant  measure  as  to  characterize  it  as  the  special  economy  of  the  Spirit.  There 
must,  have  been  a  time  when  the  Old  Testament  saints  felt  the  first  impulse  of  love  to 
God,  and  that  must  have  been  a  season  of  internal  regeneration. — [K. 


MATTHEW  XI.  11,  12.  423 

sented  only  as  a  righteous  man,  in  the  noblest  legal  sense,*  as  a 
true  representative  of  the  law,  but  from  whom  was  concealed  the 
higher  life  of  the  Spirit,  such  as  was  experienced  by  Abraham  and 
Israel,  who  appear  far  more  as  the  representatives  of  the  higher  order 
of  the  evangelical  life  which  was  hereafter  to  be  revealed,  than  of 
the  legal  state. 

Ver.  12. — From  the  personal  delineation  of  the  Baptist,  our 
Redeemer  proceeds  to  describe  the  peculiar  character  of  the  time  ; 
and  this  leads  him  to  the  objurgatory  discourse  in  verse  16.  "  As 
the  man  is  great  whom  God  has  raised  as  the  precursor  of  the  king- 
dom of  the  Messiah,  so  the  time  also  in  which  he  works,  is  rich 
in  blessings  :  the  more  culpable,  therefore,  are  they  who  do  not  avail 
themselves  of  it."  The  days  of  John,  must  be  understood  of  the 
time  of  his  publicly  appearing  to  preach  repentance  (the  terminus 
a  quo) ;  in  the  words  t'wf  dpri,  until  now,  the  terminus  ad  quern  is 
only  in  so  far  intimated  as  that  the  favourable  time  still  lasted, 
which  must,  however,  be  by  no  means  considered  as  now  brought  to 
a  close.,  The  conception  of  a  season  favourable  to  the  growth  of  all 
that  is  good,  is  expressed  in  a  peculiar  manner,  by  the  words  :  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence  (?)  (3aoiheia  r&v  vvqav&v  ftid^e- 
rai).  In  Luke  xvi.  16,  a  similar  expression  is  found  :  The  kingdom 
of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it  (tf  (3amteia  rov 
Qeov  EvayyeXi&rai,  KOI  rrdg  d$  avrrjv  j3id^erai).  With  this  thought  cor- 
responds entirely  what  follows  in  our  passage,  /cat  ftiaardi  dq-nd&vmv 
avrrjv,  and  the  violent  seize  upon  it.  No  doubt  the  words  of  this 
verse  must  be  understood  as  presenting  one  aspect  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  which  the  Lord  speaks.  In  that  time  of  powerful  ex- 
citement, there  was  manifested  among  mankind  generally,  but  es- 
specially  among  the  Jews,  a  fervent  longing,  a  desire  after  a  change 
of  condition,  which  broke  forth  the  more  violently  the  longer  it  was 
repressed.  In  so  far  as  this  longing  was,  in  its  ultimate  principle, 
really  pure,  so  far  the  kingdom  of  God  might  be  regarded  as  its  ob- 
ject ;  but,  in  so  far  as  it  contained  a  depraved  element  and  was 
blended  with  much  that  was  erroneous,  it  is  called  fitd&odai,  suffer- 
ing violence,  and  a  dp-rrd&t-v,  seizing,  is  ascribed  to  it.  For  although 
these  terms  are  meant,  in  the  first  place,  to  express  only  the  great- 
ness of  the  zeal  and  earnestness  for  that  which  is  divine,  which  act- 
ed so  powerfully  at  the  time  of  our  Lord,  yet  it  is  impossible  not  to 

*  ffengstenberg,  in  his  Christology,  vol.  iii.,  p.  472,  has  misunderstood  this  my  view, 
as  though  I  denied  repentance  and  faith  to  the  Baptist ;  I  only  meant,  to  say,  that  he  does  not 
pre-eminently  represent  faith ;  Paul  could  therefore  not  have  used  the  Baptist  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  life  of  faith,  as  he  did  Abraham  in  Rom.  iv.  We  cannot  conceive  of  any 
righteous  person  of  the  Old  Testament  as  being  destitute  of  faith,  according  to  Heb.  xi., 
only,  that  Old  Testament  faith  did  not,  like  that  of  the  New  Testament,  imply  the  pos- 
session of  divine  things,  but  only  the  hope,  as  it  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  passages  quoted. 
(Heb.  xi.  13 ;  1  Pet.  i.  10,  seq.) 


424  MATTHEW  XI.  12, 13. 

see,  in  the  choice  of  the  words,  a  gentle  censure  upon  its  mode  of 
manifestation.  Had  the  Redeemer  been  disposed  to  bring  forward 
the  other  view  of  the  same  phenomenon,  he  might  have  said  : 
"  Heaven  is,  as  it  were,  now  opened  ;  streams  of  the  Spirit  are 
poured  out  over  mankind  with  life-giving  energy."  But  it  was  bet- 
ter adapted  to  his  purpose  to  set  forth  the  activity  of  men.  With 
this  Luke  vii.  29,  30,  connects  itself  very  naturally  ;  as,  in  this  pas- 
sage, the  ardent  desire  of  the  poor  after  truth  is  contrasted  with  the 
haughty  contempt  of  it  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees.  (AtKewow  forms 
a  contrast  with  ddereo) — the  former  signifying  "  to  regard  as  just," 
"  to  approve,"  in  which  signification  it  is  found,  immediately  after- 
wards, in  Matth.  xi.  19  [see  farther  remarks  in  comment,  on  Eom. 
iii.  21],  the  latter  signifying  "  to  despise.") 

Ver.  13. — The  peculiar  condition  of  the  spiritual  world,  prevail- 
ing at  that  time,  is  still  more  distinctly  brought  out,  according  to 
Matthew,  by  the  declaration  of  Jesus,  that  the  law  and  the  proph- 
ets prophesied  only  until  John  ;  that  with  him  then,  the  great  turn- 
ing point  of  the  old  and  new  worlds  had  come.  The  thought  ap- 
pears in  a  different  connexion  in  Luke  xvi.  16  ;  but,  in  Matthew,  it 
is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  whole,  that  we  are  disposed  to 
consider  it  as  having  been  spoken  on  this  occasion.  For,  if  the 
whole  Old  Testament  dispensation  closed  with  John,  it  was  natural 
that,  with  his  appearance,  a  powerful  spiritual  movement  should 
pervade  humanity,  which,  like  the  travail  of  a  parturient  woman, 
should  precede  the  birth  of  a  higher  order  of  things.  But  in  the 
expressions  in  this  verse,  we  are,  in  the  first  place,  struck  by  the 
connexion  of  v6/j,og,  law,  with  the  prophets  ;  so  that  it  also  appears 
as  prophesying.  The  vo^og  =  rn*in,  law,  signifies  here  the  element 
from  which  the  prophets,  as  its  representatives,  proceeded,  and  it  is 
the  nature  and  power  of  the  law  to  prophesy  of  Christ.  By  awak- 
ening the  consciousness  of  sin,  it  calls  forth  also  the  longing  for  the 
Eedeemer,  without  entirely  satisfying  it.  Next  we  inquire  how  the 
word  TrpoK^^TKvaav,  prophesied,  is  to  be  explained.  It  might  be  un- 
derstood :  "  the  prophetic  agency  continues  until  John — himself  in- 
cluded." But,  in  the  first  place,  John  himself  was  not  properly  a 
prophet  in  the  Old  Testament  sense ;  he  only  bore  witness  of  him 
who  was  now  present,  and  invited  to  repentance  ;  in  the  second 
place,  moreover,  prophesy  continued  even  after  John  (Acts  xi.  28). 
It  is,  therefore,  better  to  understand  it  of  the  prophecies  them- 
selves, and  its  meaning  to  be :  "  with  John  the  prophecies  are  ful- 
filled ;  they  do  not  extend  beyond  him."  But  this  thought  seems 
without  foundation  ;  inasmuch  as  so  many  prophetic  oracles  reach 
down  to  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  in  the 
remotest  future.  Yet  the  words  which  follow  in  verse  14,  compel 
us  to  decide  in  favour  of  this  view  ;  in  them  John  is  represented  as 


,  MATTHEW  XI.  13,  14.  425 

Elijah,  and  this  points  to  the  end  of  all  prophecy.  (Mai.  iv.  5.) 
Hence,  it  is  probable,  that  we  must  add  this  passage  to  the  many 
other  passages  in  which  both  according  to  the  words  of  Christ,  and 
those  of  the  apostles,  every  thing  appears  consummated  at  their  time. 
The  explanation  of  these  striking  declarations  lies  simply  in  this, 
that  up  to  the  time  of  John  the  Baptist  the  time  of  prophesying 
continued,  and  with  Christ  commenced  that  o£ fulfilment. 

Ver.  14. — As  if  for  addition  and  confirmation,  Christ  subjoins, 
moreover,  that  this  John  was  also  the  promised  Elijah.  As  regards, 
in  the  first  place,  the  notion  of  the  appearance  of  Elijah,  to  which 
the  words  6  ^/Uwv  epxeadat,  that  was  to  come,  refer,  it  rests  on 
Mai.  iv.  5  :  s-aari  n»Vs  ns  tsV  hlw  ISSN  nan,  Behold  I  send  Elijah, 
etc.  The  LXX.  have  very  correctly  referred  these  words  to  the 
Tishbite  ;  and  so  likewise  has  Sirach  xlviii.  10 ;  according  to  gram- 
matical rules  the  word  aoajn  requires  a  reference  to  a  definite  histo- 
rical person.  It  might  be  made  a  question  whether  the  reference  to 
this  definite  person  could  not  be  explained  figuratively  by  the  iv 
rrvev^aTi  ical  dvvdpei  'H/Uov,  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  as  in 
Luke  i.  17.  This  would  even  appear  more  probable,*  if  the  New 
Testament  itself  did  not  furnish  more  exact  information  concerning 
it.  According  to  Matth.  xvii.  3,  Moses  and  Elijah  appeared  as 
heavenly  messengers  to  the  Kedeemer  in  his  transfiguration  ;  where- 
by the  figurative  explanation  of  that  promise  is  rendered  improbable. 
Striking,  however,  is  the  declaration  in  the  passage  before  us,  that 
John  is  Elijah  ;  whereas  he  himself  declares  he  is  not.  (John  i.  21.) 
But  even  if  the  words  "  if  ye  will  receive  it"  did  not  indicate  it,  yet 
the  whole  connexion  of  this  passage  with  the  other  passages  which 
treat  of  Elijah,  clearly  shows  that  the  Redeemer  called  him  so  only 
in  a  certain  sense,  viz.,  because  he  wrought  in  the  spirit  and  power 
of  Elijah,  as  Scripture  says.  (Luke  i.  17.)  Elijah  the  zealous 
preacher  of  repentance,  is,  as  it  were,  the  type  of  John.  The  ques- 
tion, however,  is,  whether  we  are  to  believe  that  that  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  has  been  entirely  fulfilled  in  the  appearance  of  John 
or  of  Elijah  himself,  at  the  time  of  Christ's  transfiguration.  We 
feel  inclined  to  doubt  this,  when  we  read  that  the  prophet  Malachi 
(iv.  5),  adds  that  Elijah  will  be  sent,  nnisn^i  Vivian  n«.rp  e^  Kin  ^E*>, 
before  that  great  and  terrible  day,  efc.f  It  seems,  therefore,  not  an 

*  Tet  this  view  is  surely  the  correct  one.  The  prophecy  (Mai.  iv.  5)  that  Elijah 
should  prepare  the  way  for  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  Christ,  cannot  be  fulfilled  in  the 
appearance  of  Moses  and  Elijah  at  the  transfiguration,  but  in  John  the  Baptist,  as  is  said 
Luke  i.  17  ;  John  i.  21.  John  only  denies  that  he  was  the  risen  Elijah,  the  same  person 
as  the  Old  Testament  prophet.  That  he  is  the  second  Elijah  prophesied  Mai.  iii.  he  does 
not  deny. — [E. 

f  The  day  of  the  Lord,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  begins  with  Christ's 
incarnation. — Rev.  ii.  6,  Moses  and  Elijah  are  employed  as  sensible  images  of  the  Law  and 
the  Gospel. — [E.  The  account  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  in  Malachi  has  its  best  common- 


426  MATTHEW  XI.  14-17. 

improbable  supposition,  that  this  prophecy,  although  fulfilled  in  a 
certain  sense,  must  be  regarded  as  yet  not  wholly  fulfilled.  (Comp. 
remarks  on  Kev.  xi.  6.)  As  it  is  the  nature  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy  that  its  subject  may  appear  in  a  previous  manifestation, 
without  its  import  being  thereby  fully  exhausted,  so  also  here.  The 
time  of  Christ  was  by  no  means  the  prophesied  great  day  of  the 
Lord ;  but  that  whole  time  which  reached  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  had  a  certain  resemblance  to  the  last  days  ;  and  so  it  had 
also  an  element  (John  the  Baptist)  which  prefigured  the  future  ap- 
pearance of  Elijah.  It  is  likely  that,  from  such  a  tram  of  ideas, 
the  indefinite  "  if  ye  will  receive  it"  arose. 

Ver.  15. — To  direct  attention  to  those  appearances  in  the  pre- 
sent time,  Christ  adds  the  solemn,  earnest  words  :  He  that  hath  ears 
to  hear,  let  him  hear  (6  K^UV  tira  ditovuv,  d/covero))  (dicoveiv  =  y>s», 
intettigere;  hence  wra  =  s1:?^,  of  the  faculty  of  the  understanding.*) 
According  to  the  intention  of  Christ,  his  discourse  must  have  con- 
tained something  not  less  worthy  of  investigation  than  requiring  it, 
and  by  this,  the  admonition  was  called  forth.  From  the  remarks 
already  made,  it  will  appear  that  the  words  have  not  yet  lost  their 
profound  meaning. 

Ver.  16,  17. — That  which  was  alluded  to  in  ver.  7,  is  now  in 
figurative  language  more  fully  set  forth.  Our  Kedeemer  reproves 
his  fickle  contemporaries  by  comparing  them  to  capricious  children 
whom  it  is  impossible  to  please  in  any  way,  and  who  understand 
neither  mildness  nor  severity.  (Concerning  yeved  —  -iin?  those  living 
together  at  one  period,  comp.  remarks  on  Matth.  xxiv.  34.  The 
text  of  Matthew  has  been  altered  here  in  various  ways  ;  instead  of 
dyopalt; — dyopa  has  been  adopted  ;  instead  of  iraipoig — t-repoif,  in 
place  of  which  Luke  has  dAA^/lotf.  The  usual  reading,  however, 
deserves  the  preference,  both  from  internal  and  external  reasons.) 
The  piping,  mourning  (atvUw,  flpf/vew),  refer  to  children's  plays,  both 
amusing  and  grave.  But  the  whole  figure  would  be  misunderstood, 
if  the  speaking  children  were  made  to  represent  Jesus  and  John, 
who  again  are  the  representatives  of  mildness  and  severity ;  whilst 
the  other  children  spoken  to  represented  the  capricious  multitude. 
On  the  contrary,  both  classes  of  children — those  who  speak  as 
well  as  those  who  are  addressed — are  to  be  viewed  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  capricious  contemporaries  of  Jesus,  so  that  the 
sense  is  this  :  "  The  generation  resembles  a  host  of  ill-humoured 

tary  in  John's  description  of  Christ,  Matth.  iii.  The  reference  obviously  is  to  the  search- 
ing, descriminating,  spiritual  character  of  the  new  kingdom.  There  is  then  no  difficulty  in 
making  the  "  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord"  identical  with  the  Saviour's  appearing  to 
set  up  his  new  kingdom.  John  the  Baptist  is  clearly  the  promised  Elijah. — [K. 

*  Similar  formulas  are  used  by  Jewish  teachers,  e.  g.,  in  the  Zohar :  qui  audit  audiat, 
qui  iniettigit  inteUigat.  Besides,  in  the  Gospels,  the  formula,  6  lxuv  "ra  K-  T-  '*•  IS  found 
very  frequently  in  Revelations ;  but  it  is  altogether  wanting  in  the  Gospel  of  John. 


MATTHEW  XI.  17-19.  427 

children,  whom  it  is  impossible  to  please  in  any  way  ;  one  part  de- 
sires this,  and  the  other  that,  so  that  they  cannot  agree  upon  any 
desirable  or  useful  occupation.* 

Ver.  18,  19. — This  figurative  discourse  is  immediately  followed 
by  the  literal  declaration  ;  John  was  too  severe  for  them,  and  Jesus 
too  mild.  (Concerning  the  phrase  daipoviov  I^EI,  comp.  the  rem.  on 
Matth.  xii.  24.)  The  difference  between  the  Old  and  New  dispen- 
sations appears  here  in  a  striking  manner,  in  the  description,  though 
frequently  misunderstood,  of  their  respective  representatives.  In 
John,  we  see  the  strict  observer  of  the  law,  who  exhibits  in  his  de- 
meanour an  austere  and  rigid  morality,  and  abstains  from  all  con- 
tact with  the  sinner  ;  in  our  Redeemer,  on  the  other  hand,  we  see 
the  impossibility  of  sinning,  joined  with  compassionate  love,  which 
urges  him  not  to  withdraw  even  from  the  most  wretched,  since  their 
impurity  cannot  tarnish  his  heavenly  purity,  whilst  his  divine  light 
is  able  to  illuminate  their  darkness.  John  is  a  noble  human  phe- 
nomenon, a  flower  of  earth  ;  Jesus  appears  as  a  heavenly  form,  the 
offspring  of  a  higher  world.  Blessed  at  that  time,  and  blessed  now 
are  those  who  are  not  offended  at  him,  but  receive  him  as  he  is ! 
The  words,  "  and  wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children"  (Luke  adds  all), 
form  the  close  of  this  thought.  These,  like  so  many  other  words 
of  the  Lord,  resemble  many-sided  polished  jewels,  which  send  forth 
their  splendour  in  more  than  one  direction  ;  a  peculiarity  found  in 
many  pregnant  maxims,  even  of  human  sages.  Considered  by  them- 
selves, they  possess  a  manifold  significancy  ;  but  in  the  connexion 
of  discourse,  one  meaning,  of  course,  becomes  prominent.  The  ex- 
pression, "  children  of  wisdom,"  evidently  points  to  a  contrast  with 
what  precedes,  where  the  children  of  folly  are  described  from  the 
folly  of  their  judgments.  (The  «at  must  therefore  be  taken  =  }  in 
an  adversative  sense,  and  dmaiovadai  as  above  in  Luke  vii.  29,  in  the 
sense,  "  to  declare  just,"  hence  "  to  acknowledge  as  such,"  "  to 
praise,"  "  to  laud.")  The  thought  would  then  be  :  "  wisdom  (which 
is  found  fault  with  by  foolish  men)  is  justified,  and  defended,  and 
represented  as  wisdom  by  her  children,  viz.,  by  their  treatment  of 
her  requisitions."  With  this  agrees  Matth.  xi.  25,  seq.  in  which  the 
vrfnioi,  babes,  are  described  as  the  truly  wise.  (Neither  the  aorist, 
nor  the  signification  of  the  6inaiovo6ai,  favours  the  translation,  "  wis- 
dom is  blamed  by  her  children.")  But  this  thought  acquires  a  pe- 

*  The  sentiment,  I  think,  stated  in  more  precise  language  is:  This  generation  is  like 
those  children  sitting  in  the  market  place  to  whom  their  fellows  call,  saying,  "We  have  piped, 
etc.  The  simple  point  of  the  comparison  is  that,  as  these  children  would  neither  join  their 
fellows  in  strains  of  merriment  or  grief,  so  the  men  of  this  generation  find  fault  equally  with 
the  austerity  of  John,  and  the  more  genial  character  of  the  Saviour.  Olshausen's  expla- 
nation does  not,  I  think,  make  allowance  for  the  want  of  strict  exactness  in  the  Saviour's 
mode  of  expression.  He  says,  "it  is  like  children  sitting  and  calling,"  etc.,  when  the  pre- 
cise meaning  is,  "  it  resembles  what  occurs  when  children  sit,"  etc. — [K. 


428  MATTHEW  XL  19,  20. 

culiar  charm,  when  we  consider  that  Scripture  does  not  speak  of 
wisdom  in  the  abstract,  but  as  a  heavenly  person,  yea,  that  Jesus 
calls  himself  the  Wisdom.  (See  note  on  Luke  xi.  49,  compared 
with  Matth.  xxii.  34 ;  John  i.  1,  arid  Sirach  xxiv.  4,  seq.)  In  this 
case,  then,  the  Kedeemer  here  appears  as  speaking  with  reference  to 
his  divine  nature,  and  the  aorist  KdncaiwOrj,  was  justified,  acquires  a 
peculiar  significancy.  The  same  phenomenon  which  he  reproves  in 
the  present,  viz.,  that  foolish  men  take  offence  at  the  ways  of  wis- 
dom, has  repeated  itself  at  all  times  ;  but  at  all  times  the  children 
of  wisdom  have  justified  their  mother,  and  will  do  so  even  now. 
The  Kedeemer  appears  here,  therefore,  as  the  bestower  of  all  spirit- 
ual blessing  from  the  beginning  of  time,  as  the  generator,  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  of  all  the  earthly  representatives  of  wisdom 
whom  he  now,  closing  the  series  of  manifestations,  represents  person- 
ally, in  all  her  fulness  and  glory.  (We  must  reject  all  expositions 
of  the  passage  which  exclude  the  contrast  with  that  which  pre- 
cedes ;  as,  for  instance,  that  according  to  which  teyovm,  they  say,  is 
to  be  supplied  after  /cat,  and;  so  that  even  the  clause  tdtKaiuOr),  K.  r. 
A.  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  censorious  Jews,  according  to  whom 
the  TKKVO,  aofaag  would  be  merely  supposed  children  of  wisdom.) 

Ver.  20. — The  reproving  discourse  which  follows,  is  found,  in  its 
original  connexion,  on  the  occasion  of  the  sending  forth  of  the 
seventy,  in  Luke  x.  13,  seq.  ;  but  Matthew  has,  very  properly,  in- 
troduced it  in  this  part  of  his  narrative.  The  whole  discourse  of 
the  Redeemer  was  a  censure  upon  his  contemporaries  ;  but,  in  the 
following  words,  the  reproof  is  uttered,  in  its  utmost  severity,  against 
those  who  had  most  clearly  seen  his  glory.  The  whole  passage 
again  represents  the  same  principle,  but  only  from  a  different  point 
of  view,  which  we  dwelt  upon  in  Matth.  x.  41.  As  a  reward  is  not 
regulated  by  the  deed  itself,  but  by  the  disposition  from  which  it 
springs,  and  the  consciousness  by  which  it  is  accompanied  ;  so 
punishment  also  will  not  be  determined  by  the  outward  aspect  of 
the  deed,  but  by  the  inward  disposition  of  which  it  is  the  evidence, 
and  by  the  consciousness  which  it  presupposes.  The  guilt  of  Tyre, 
Sidon,  and  Sodom,  is  in  this  passage  represented  as  less  ;  first,  be- 
cause their  inhabitants  occupied  a  less  advanced  position  than  did 
the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ ;  and  secondly,  because  that  which 
was  divine  appeared  to  them  in  a  far  less  glorious  form.  At  the 
time  of  Christ,  however,  the  feeling  of  need  was  active,  and  was  met 
in  his  person  by  the  purest  manifestation  of  divinity,  condescend- 
ing, moreover,  to  human  weakness,  by  external  acts  of  the  most 
striking  character.  But,  nevertheless,  men  hardened  themselves 
against  these  powerful  impressions  of  the  Spirit,  and  did  not  repent ; 
this,  therefore,  enhanced  their  guilt  exceedingly.  By  the  greater 
guilt  of  the  latter,  however,  the  guilt  of  the  former  is,  in  no  way, 


MATTHEW  XI.  21-23.  429 

diminished ;  it  remains  what  it  is,  though  spoken  of  relatively  as 
compared  with  the  more  fully  developed  manifestations  of  sin. 

Ver.  21.— Chorazin  (Xopa#i>),  a  small  place  in  Galilee,  on  the 
shores  of  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  near  Capernaum,  is  mentioned 
only  here.  Some  expositors  write,  without  any  reason,  x&pa  'Liv.  It 
is  evident  that  towns  are  here  spoken  of  (ver.  20).  In  the  same 
quarter  was  situated  the  "better  known  town  BrjOaa'idd  (derived  from 
n:§  and  nys,  i.  e.,  fisher's  town).  The  two  together  appear  as  the 
representatives  of  that  highly  favoured  region,  where  the  footsteps 
of  the  Lord  were  seen  so  long,  and  his  hand  dispensed  so  many 
blessings.  Tyre  and  Sidon,  on  the  contrary,  are  mentioned  as 
the  wealthy  and  voluptuous  representatives  of  gross  sensual  en- 
joyment, which,  as  such,  had  been  frequently  denounced  by  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  (Is.  xxiii.)  Kepenting  in  sack- 
cloth and  ashes,  is  the  well-known  Old  Testament  description  of  an 
earnest  disposition  to  repentance,  which  manifests  itself  in  cor- 
responding outward  acts.  (1  Kings  xxi.  27 ;  2  Kings  vi.  30 ; 
Jonah  iii.  6,  8.) 

Ver.  22. — The  term  rj^spa  KQioeug,  day  of  judgment,  is  used,  in 
its  most  general  sense,  to  denote  the  period  which  will  at  length  come, 
when  good  and  evil  which,  in  the  present  course  of  the  world,  are 
mixed  together,  shall  be  separated.  (Comp.  further  remarks  on  Matth. 
xxiv.)  "AvEKTog  or  dveicTog,  from  ave%«,  "  tolerable/'  "  endurable." 
(See  the  same  thought,  Matth.  x.  15.)  The  comparative,  as  well  as 
the  whole  context,  points  to  different  degrees  of  punishment  for  the 
wicked  ;  some  are,  as  it  were,  in  mitissima  damnatione  as  August- 
ine says.  This  idea  of  degrees  of  punishment  seems  to  imply,  that  it 
may  be  even  remitted  ;  and  this  must  be  unhesitatingly  conceded  of 
the  lesser  forms  of  sin.  (See  more  particularly  at  Matth.  xii.  32.) 

Ver.  23.— The  same  thing  applies,  in  a  higher  degree,  to  Caper- 
naum. (See  note  on  Matth.  iv.  13.)  This  insignificant  Galilean 
country-town  had  become  the  fixed  residence  of  the  Messiah,  and 
had  thereby  gained  a  higher  importance.  The  choice  of  the  town  for 
his  abode,  on  the  part  of  the  Redeemer,  is  evidently  not  accidental, 
but  intimately  connected  with  the  reputation  and  susceptibility  of 
its  inhabitants.  Here  the  nucleus  of  the  kingdom  of  God  might,  and 
should  have  been  formed.  Instead  of  that,  however,  only  a  few 
joined  themselves  with  entire  devotedness  to  the  Lord  ;  the  others, 
destitute  of  faith,  persevered  in  their  unholy  walk.  The  more  daz- 
zling, therefore,  the  light  was  to  which  they  opposed  themselves,  the 
longer  it  shone  upon  their  dark  hearts,  the  heavier  was  their  punish- 
ment. This  is  described  in  £wf  adov  Kara^iftaodrjay,  thou  shalt  be 
brought  down  to  hell,  in  uttering  which,  our  Redeemer  probably  had 
before  his  mind  Old  Testament  passages,  such  as  Ezek.  xxxi.  10  ; 
Is.  xiv.  15,  Ivii.  9.  Ka,Ta(3t(3(%eadai  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New 


430  MATTHEW  XI.  23-25. 


Testament  ;  it  is  the  reverse  of  ti^dftJMui  hence  dejici,  "to  be 
brought  down."  Ovpavog,  heaven,  is  contrasted  with  &%*  or 
pdov  olnog,  dtifjia  =  VIKW.  Such  expressions,  taken  from  the  Greek 
mythology  (as  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  alludes  even  to  ropropof),  the  language 
of  Scripture  admits  without  hesitation,  if  they  were  prevalent  in 
the  mouths  of  the  people,  and  had  a  true  foundation.  The  true 
and  simple  fundamental  idea  of  heaven  and  hades,  is  this  ;  that 
evil  and  good,  which,  even  on  earth,  though  outwardly  blended,  are 
separated  in  their  nature  and  essence,  are  to  have  an  ultimate  and 
complete  separation.  In  so  far  then  as  the  day  of  judgment  (/cptaewf, 
separation)  reduces  to  its  ultimate  principle  that  which  appears 
here  mixed  together,  the  being  cast  down  into  hades  signifies  the 
return  of  individual  evil  to  its  element.f  At  the  great  separa- 
tion, which  is  impending  over  the  universe,  every  individual  life 
will  be  attracted  and  governed  by  the  power  of  that  element  to 
which  it  granted  admission  into  itself.  He  who  admitted  the  Spi- 
rit and  light  of  Christ,  will  be  drawn  by  him  into  his  kingdom  of 
light  ;  he  who  allowed  the  spirit  of  darkness  to  rule  in  his  heart, 
will  become  a  prey  to  the  power  of  darkness  ;  each  according  to  the 
degree  of  his  guilt,  which  only  God  can  determine  (see  note  on 
Matth.  vii.  1),  since  it  is  dependent  upon  the  degree  of  the  impres- 
sion which  the  light  made  upon  man,  and  against  which  he  harden- 
ed himself.  Strange  that  some  expositors  should  have  explained 
this  passage  of  external  prosperity.  "  Thou  art  a  very  wealthy  and 
prosperous  town,  but  thou  shalt  greatly  decline."  Whatever  man 
cherishes  in  his  heart,  he  reproduces  even  in  the  word  of  God  ;  he 
makes  a  god  for  himself,  and  makes  his  Redeemer  speak  as  suits 
him  best,  and  as  he  would  have  spoken.  (Comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  20.)  The 
more  guilty  Capernaum  is  then  contrasted  with  Sodom,  with  the 
remark  :  it  would  have  remained  until  this  day.  These  words,  un- 
less they  are  empty  words,  are  remarkable,  as  showing  that  our 
Redeemer  ascribes,  even  to  that  which  is  past,  no  absolute  necessity. 
He  evidently  acknowledges,  even  here,  the  freedom  of  self-determi- 
nation, and  the  possibility  of  things  having  been  otherwise,  if  men 
had  been  obedient  to  God,  This,  in  a  moral  aspect,  so  important 
a  view  of  history,  as  being  wholly  based  upon  the  free  actions  of 
individuals,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Scripture  doctrine. 

Ver.  25.  —  That  the  following  words  were  not  spoken  in  imme- 
diate connexion  with  the  preceding,  Matthew  himself  indicates  by 
the  words  :  KV  titeivu  rw  Kaipti,  at  that  season.  This  formula  of 
transition  seems  to  place  an  interval  between  that  which  precedes 

*  Concerning  a^f,  compare  the  remarks  on  Luke  xvi.  28. 

|  "Being  exalted  to  heaven"  and  "brought  down  to  hades,"  seem  to  be  strong  figu- 
rative expressions,  denoting  on  the  one  hand  high  spiritual  privilege,  on  the  other,  cor- 
responding degradation  and  ruin,  of  course,  with  a  spiritual  reference.  —  [K. 


MATTHEW  XI.  25.  431 

and  that  which  follows.  Luke  x.  21,  seq.  gives  a  definite  and  ap- 
propriate connexion  of  the  words.  We  have,  therefore,  reason  to 
suppose  that  Matthew  again  followed  his  practice  of  bringing  into 
a  new  connexion  the  elements  of  our  Lord's  discourses,  as  it  was  not 
at  all  his  object  to  exhibit  the  life  and  acts  of  Jesus  chronologically, 
but  only  under  their  more  general  points  of  view.  The  same  Spirit, 
who  had  spoken  through  our  Lord,  guided  the  disciple  also  in  the 
arrangement.  This  may  again  be  seen  in  the  position  of  the  fol- 
lowing verses  ;  they  form  a  very  appropriate  contrast  with  the  pre- 
ceding objurgatory  discourse  against  the  unbelieving  ;  they  are  the 
commentary  on  the  words  in  ver.  19,  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her 
children.  The  entire  passage  (ver.  25-30),  moreover,  is  remarkable 
for.  its  majestic  course  of  thought.  It  is  conceived  in  the  spirit  of 
John.  We  see  hence,  that  it  is  the  same  Jesus  who  speaks  in  Mat- 
thew and  John  ;  his  discourses  are  received  by  different  individuals; 
and  each  reproduces  him  in  the  aspects  under  which,  with  his  pecu- 
liar mental  traits,  he  had  been  enabled  to  apprehend  him.  Ver. 
25,  30,  now  open  to  us  an  insight  into  the  innermost  recesses  of  our 
Kedeemer's  heart — a  heart  burning  with  love  to  his  brethren.  Con- 
scious of  his  divine  majesty  arid  glory,  he  humbly  condescends  to 
the  lowly,  and  seeks  to  comfort  the  forsaken.  The  real  substance 
of  Christianity,  the  condescension  of  the  Divine  to  the  weak  and 
poor,  is  here  celebrated  in  inspired  language.  Compared  with  this, 
all  human  greatness,  wisdom,  and  glory,  sink  into  the  dust.  (Mat- 
thew begins  :  Jesus  answered  and  said  (d-noKpidelg  el-rrev  6  'Irjaovs), 
drroKpiveadai,  ansioering,  being  used  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
Hebrew  n;j>.  [Comp.  note  on  Luke  i.  60.]  Luke  x.  21,  on  the 
other  hand,  points  out  the  rejoicing  and  exulting  of  the  Lord's 
spirit,  in  the  words  "  exulted  in  spirit"  (fiyaXXidoaro  TO>  Trvevjutm). 
Here  ry  ^v^y,  in  soul,  could  not  have  been  appropriately  used,  as 
it  would  have  pointed  rather  to  the  human  nature  of  the  Kedeemer, 
as  in  Matth.  xxvi.  38.  The  joy  here  spoken  of  is  purely  objective, 
in  which  the  wrorld  of  spirits  shares,  and  which  is  exhibited  in  its 
perfection,  in  the  inner  life  of  the  Lord).  Christ  commences  with 
the  praise  of  Grod,  for  his  sovereign  providence.  ('E^onoXoyeladai  = 
rnih  seq.  Dativ.  "  to  praise,"  "  to  laud/'  Horn.  xiv.  11,  and  fre- 
quently in  the  LXX.)  According  to  the  well-known  Old  Testament 
designation,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  God  is  represented  as  the 
Lord  of  the  universe,  in  evidently  intended  contrast  with  the  VTJTTIOI, 
babes  —  fj-iicpoi  (Matth.  x.  42),  irrw^ol  TW  irvet>[JiaTi.  For  the  idea  of 
the  babe  implies  not  only  that  which  is  undeveloped,  but  also  that 
which  is  inexperienced  and  helpless  ;  as  it  stands  here  in  contrast 
with  ao<poi,  wise,  and  ovveroi,  prudent.  The  former  of  these  two 
expressions  refers  rather  to  that  which  is  divine,  the  latter  to  that 
which  is  earthly  ;  the  oofyia  is  the  result  of  the  vovq  (reason), 


432  MATTHEW  XI.  25,  26. 


the  ovvemg,  of  Qpeves  (understanding).*  Hence  it  cannot  be  said 
precisely,  that  the  wise  and  prudent  possessed  a  false  wisdom 
and  prudence  ;  they  had  in  their  knowledge  much  that  was  true, 
and  were,  in  this  respect,  more  advanced  than  the  disciples  of  the 
Lord.  But  their  wisdom  and  prudence  was,  at  the  best,  earthly, 
marred,  therefore,  by  many  defects,  and  unable  to  penetrate  the 
depths  of  that  which  is  divine.  Christ,  on  the  contrary,  brought  a 
heavenly  wisdom  ;  and  the  first  condition  for  the  reception  of  it 
was  poverty,  the  being  emptied  of  man's  wisdom.  For  this  reason, 
human  wisdom  became  in  itself  an  obstacle  to  the  reception  of  the 
pure  light  which  beamed  down  from  the  opened  heavens,  whilst  the 
simplest  and  lowliest  men  —  such  as  were  conscious  of  their  poverty 
and  blindness  in  things  divine  and  human,  but  burned  with  a  long- 
ing after  truth  —  received  it  more  readily  and  deeply.  (Comp.  1  Cor. 
i.  19.)  It  is  this  wonderful  dispensation  —  that  the  Lord  of  heaven 
and  earth  espoused  the  poorest  and  the  most  wretched  —  which  our 
Saviour  here  celebrates  with  exultation.  The  term  ravra,  these 
things,  comprehends,  therefore,  all  which  was  peculiar  in  the  life 
of  Christ,  and  which  has  been  conferred  upon  mankind  through 
his  ministry.  The  men  who  could  comprehend  it,  received  it  by  a 
revelation  (a7ro/caA?/0^)  .  Human  wisdom  is  a  fruit  of  intellectual 
activity  and  spontaneity  ;  the  heavenly  wisdom,  on  the  contrary,  is 
an  effect  of  a  divine  influence  on  man's  receptive  faculties,  and  is 
the  root  of  the  life  of  faith.  But,  whilst  faith  belongs  altogether 
to  the  heart,  wisdofn,  in  its  heavenly  form,  is  a  blossom  of  the  in- 
tellect (vovf).  With  the  revelation,  however,  is  contrasted  a  con- 
cealing (aTTo/cpvi/ttf),  an  expression  which  might  be  considered  as 
favouring  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination.  (Comp.  Matth. 
xiii.  13,  14.)  There  is,  however,  nothing  which  prevents  us  from 
understanding  d-iTotcpv-rrTeiv  ,  concealing,  in  this  passage  as  meaning 
merely  "  not  to  reveal  ;"  so  that  the  sense  would  be,  "  they  are  left 
to  their  earthly  wisdom."  We  here,  therefore,  pass  over  the  refer- 
ence to  predestination,  which  will  hereafter  frequently  occupy  our 
attention. 

Ver.  26.  —  Once  more  our  Redeemer  breathes  forth  his  feelings  of 
thankfulness  to  the  Father  ;  vai  sc.  l&ofio&ffytvpai  ooi.  (Concerning 
evdoKia  =  -psn,  see  note  on  Luke  ii.  14.)  Inasmuch  as  the  divine 
will  is  the  pure  manifestation  of  the  divine  nature,  since  God  can 
never  will  any  thing  but  what  he  is,  this  implies  the  idea,  that  even 
this  gracious  endowing  of  the  poor,  and  of  babes,  with  true  heavenly 
wisdom,  is  an  effect  of  the  pure  self-denying  love  of  God,  manifest- 
ing itself  in  the  communication  of  his  own  nature.  The  love  of 
God,  the  absolute  reverse  of  envy,  induces  him  to  descend  into  souls 
and  into  precisely  those  of  the  poor  and  needy.  Without  being  en- 
*  Comp.  the  Author's  Opusc.  Theol.  (BeroL  1833),  p.  159. 


MATTHEW  XI.  26,  27.  433 

lightened  from  above,  man  does  not  know  nor  understand  this  won- 
derful love  of  God,  since  he  loves  only  splendour  and  fulness— not 
poverty  ;  but  Jesus  is  himself  the  clearest  proof  and  manifestation 
of  it  ;  in  him  dwelt  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  in  the  bosom  of 
humanity  ;  and  yet  this  divine  manifestation  was  most  unpretend- 
ing and  humble.  From  the  Father,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  of 
earth,  our  Lord  passes  to  himself,  the  visible  representation  of  this 
pure  love  of  God,  and  describes  himself  as  working,  just  in  the 
same  manner  which  he  celebrated  in  the  Father  ;  he  invites  all  the 
needy,  all  the  wretched,  to  enjoy  the  fulness  of  God  which  is  in  him. 

Ver.  27. — The  transition  from  the  Father  to  the  Son  may  be 
explained  by  the  following  thought :  "The  organ  through  which  the 
Father  reveals  himself,  as  the  eternal  mercy,  is  the  Son  himself/' 
First,  the  Redeemer  proceeds  from  the  thought  of  his  divine  power, 
in  the  words  :  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  by  my  Father" 
(jravra  \LOI  Trape666r]  VTTO  rov  narpo^).  The  Trdvra,  all  things,  re- 
fers back  to  the  Kvptog  ovpavov  KOL  y%,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
in  ver.  25,  so  that  the  passage  forms  a  parallel  to  the  words  of  the 
Lord  :  £869rj  \ioi  ndoa  £%ovoia  iv  ovpavti  not  im  yjjg,  all  power  is  given, 
etc.  (Matth.  xxviii.  18),  in  which  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  repre- 
sented as  the  ruler  of  the  world,  to  whom  the  same  honour  and  wor- 
ship are  due  as  to  the  Father,  and  in  whom  alone  the  Father  reveals 
himself  to  mankind.  (John  xiv.  9.)  But  as  the  kingdom  belongs 
originally  to  the  Father,  it  is  only  given  (jrapedodrf)  to  the  Son,  in  so 
far  as  he  is  at  the  same  time  Man;  for  which  reason,  at  the  end  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  the  Son  gives  it  back  into  the  hands  of  the 
Father.  (1  Cor.  xv.  28.)  Starting  from  this  fundamental  relation, 
our  Eedeemer  then  points  out  the  special  relation  of  his  people  to  the 
Father,  in  reference  to  their  knowing  him  (faiyvamf},  and  thence 
deduces  the  doctrine,  that  all  that  true  revelation  to  the  babes, 
comes  only  through  him;  that  therefore  all  knowledge  gained  with- 
out him  and  out  of  him,  is  merely  human  knowledge,  and,  there- 
fore, unsatisfactory.  In  the  first  place,  then,  the  Lord  represents 
the  mutual  relation  between  Father  and  Son,  by  saying :  ovdels 
emyiv&aicet  rov  vlbv  el  fj,rj  6  Trarrjp,  ov6e  rov  narepa  rig  emyivcjaicei  el  ftrj 
6  vlog,  no  one  knoweth  the  Son  except  the  Father,  etc.  It  is  remark- 
able, that  the  Fathers  often  invert  this  passage  in  their  quotations. 
(Comp.  on  this  subject  my  Gesch.  der  Evang.  S.  292,  f.)  Irenceus 
even  says  in  a  passage  (Adv.  Haer.  iv.  14),  that  the  heretics  had  in- 
tentionally made  this  inversion,  according  to  which  they  read  first: 
ovdelg  emyivuonei  rbv  Trarepa  el  fir}  6  vlo$,  no  one  knoiveth  the  Father 
except  the  Son;  but  that  is  very  improbable,  because  Irenceus  himself 
frequently  inverts  the  two  members  of  the  verse.  Now  the  reading 
itself  is  not  contested  by  the  MSS;  the  question  then  only  is,  why 
the  position  of  the  members  should  be  just  as  it  is.  The  knowing 

VOL.  I.— 28 


434  MATTHEW  XI.  27,  28. 

of  the  Son  is  no  doubt  here  placed  first,  because  it  forms  the  prin- 
cipal subject;  Jesus  wishes  to  impress  upon  his  followers  that  no 
man  can  come  to  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  except  through  the 
Son,  for  "  no  man  can  come  to  the  Father  except  by  me."  (John  xiv. 
6.)  If  Jesus  had  wished  to  represent  it  absolutely,  "no  man  knoweth 
the  Father  except  the  Son"  would  very  likely  have  been  placed  first. 
It  is  precisely  in  the  contrast  of  the  two  members,  that  the  peculiar 
mutual  relation,  existing  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  in- 
dicated, according  to  the  words,  Thou  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in 
thee.*  The  Father  beholds  himself  in  the  Son,  as  his  image,  the 
effulgence  of  his  glory  (ekwv,  aTravyaap-a  r^g  <56^f,  Heb.  i.  3) ;  the 
Son  finds  himself  again  in  the  Father,  so  that  the  Son  is  the  self- 
manifestation  (Selbstobjectiitirung)  of  the  Father,  which,  as  a  di- 
vine and  hence  everlasting  act,  has  begotten  the  Son  as  an  everlast- 
ing Being.  (On  the  relation  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  see 
more  fully  on  John  i.  1.)  This  mutual  act  of  recognising  and  being 
recognised,  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  communicated  to 
mankind  by  the  Son  as  the  Word,  as  the  manifestation  of  the  Fa- 
ther, who  is  concealed  within  himself.  (Comp.  remarks  on  1  Cor. 
xiii.  12  ;  Gal.  iv.  9.)  This  revelation,  it  is  true,  depends  on  the  will 
of  the  Son  (o>  £av  Povkip-ai),  which,  however,  must  not  be  conceived 
of  as  an  arbitrary  one,  but  as  guided  by  compassionate  love  and 
wisdom.  If  any  one  should  here  object,  that  if  the  Son  communi- 
cates to  any  the  knowledge  of  God,  as  indeed  he  has  communicated 
it  from  everlasting  to  certain  individuals,  it  is  then  no  longer  the 
Son  alone  who  knows  the  Father,  but  these  also  along  with  the 
Son  ;  we  would  answer  that  in  the  individual  knowing  God,  it  is 
Christ  himself,  by  his  Spirit,  who  knows  the  Father  (Gal.  ii.  20) ; 
if,  therefore,  the  whole  church  hereafter  shall  know  the  Father  by  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  yet  it  is  still  only  the  Son  who  in  this  infinite  num- 
ber of  individuals,  recognises  the  Father,  inasmuch  as  they  are  all 
one  in  Christ.  (Gal.  iii.  28  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  12.)  Hence  it  is  clear, 
that  the  Kmyivuaiceiv,  knowing,  is  no  mere  intellectual  knowledge  of 
divine  things  (precisely  the  nature  of  human  wisdom,  whose  know- 
ledge of  God  has  no  power  of  creating  divine  life),  but  the  life  of 
God  in  man,  and  of  man  in  God,  which,  it  is  true,  is  not  without 
knowledge,  but  unites  in  one  knowledge  and  the  essential  sub- 
stance. The  knowing  of  God  is,  therefore,  based  upon  divine  love, 
upon  God  communicating  his  nature  to  the  beings  whom  he  has 
created.  "  It  is  only  light  that  beholds  light;  only  that  which  is 
divine  recognises  divinity." 

Ver.  28. — The  following  verses,  which  we  find  only  in  Matthew, 
and  which  seem  here  in  their  appropriate  place,  are  a  commentary 

*  Concerning  the  recognition  of  the  Father  through  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  through 
the  Father,  compare  the  pregnant  texts,  John  x.  14 ;  1  John  ii.  13,  14. 


MATTHEW  XI.  28-30.  435 

i 
on  the  words  in  ver.  5  :  the  poor  have  the  Gospel,  etc..     He  to  whom 

all  things  are  delivered  by  the  Father,  calls  to  himself  the  heavy 
laden — not  the  rich,  the  great  and  the  glorious — that  is  to  say,  he 
gives  himself  to  them.  The  two  terms,  KOTTIUVTES  nal  m^opTia- 
pevoi,  labouring  and  heavy-laden,  denote  the  same  condition  (that 
of  being  under  sin  and  its  consequences)  ;  the  former  pointing  out 
its  active,  the  latter  its  passive  feature.  The  sense  of  suffering  be- 
neath the  yoke  of  sin,  originates  in  man  only  from  divine  influence  ; 
the  ungodly  man  feels  at  his  ease  under  it.  So  far  as  the  divine 
principle  in  men  strives  after  deliverance  from  sin,  they  are  called 
Kom&vreg  labouring  ;  so  far  as  they  feel  its  pressure,  and  their  inabil- 
ity to  free  themselves  from  it,  they  are  called  neQopriafievoi,  heavy- 
laden.  The  removal  of  this  whole  condition  is  promised  by  the  Ke- 
deemer  in  the  rest  (dvd-rravaif).  Faith  in  him  brings  back  the  lost 
harmony  in  the  inner  and  outer  life,  and  with  it,  rest  to  the  soul. 
(Comp.  Jer.  vi.  16.  The  idea  of  rest  corresponds  with  John's  £WT/V 
e%eiv  KOI  mpiaoov,  having  life  and  that  abundantly.  [John  x.  10.] 
As  soon  as  the  magnet  of  life  has  found  its  pole  of  attraction,  peace 
and  rest  follow.  The  rest  (avd-rravoL^),  in  its  higher  degree,  and  un- 
changing state,  is  peace,  elprjvrj.') 

Ver.  29,  30. — But  as  the  holy  principle  in  man  is  encumbered 
with  the  heavy  burden  of  sin  within  and  around  him,  the  claims  of 
the  divine  life  appear  at  first  burdensome  and  oppressive.  The 
discord  in  man  is  not  immediately  removed  after  his  entering  into 
the  element  of  the  good.  For  this  reason,  the  Kedeemer  speaks 
also  of  a  yoke  and  a  burden  (%vyo$  and  0opriov),  which  he  himself 
imposes.  But  it  appears  easy  and  light  when  compared  with  the 
burden  of  sin.  For,  from  the  latter,  man's  nobler  nature  suffers  di- 
rectly, it  causes  the  deepest  oppression  of  the  soul ;  and  this  feature 
characterized  the  oppressive  yoke  of  the  Pharisaical  ordinances,  in- 
asmuch as  they  were  born  of  sin,  and  checked  in  its  development 
the  divine  life.  (Comp.  remarks  on  Matth.  xxiii.  4.)  The  burden 
of  Christ,  on  the  contrary,  is  only  felt  by  man  so  far  as  he  is  still  en- 
cumbered with  sin  ;  his  nobler  nature  feels  Christ's  Spirit  and  life 
to  be  a  homogeneous  element ;  and  thus  the  believer  can  exult  and 
sing  praises  inwardly,  although,  outwardly,  he  be  perishing  daily. 
(2  Cor.  iv.  16.)  This  struggle  with  sin,  the  believer  must  enter 
upon,  according  to  the  command  of  Christ,  (dpare,  take,  signifies  the 
positive  activity  in  entering  upon  the  struggle — comp.  remarks  on 
Matth.  x.  38),  and  learn  of  Christ.  In  a  manner  not  to  be  mis- 
taken, then,  Jesus  here  represents  himself  as  King  and  Prophet, 
who  imposes  the  yoke  of  his  rule,  and  offers  his  doctrine  for  accept- 
ance ;  but  his  is  a  mild  rule  and  teaching,  when  compared  with  the 
service  of  sin,  and  all  which  has  originated  from  it  (for  instance  the 
Pharisaical  observances)  ;  and  it  is  this  mildness  which  the  Be- 


436  MATTHEW  XI.  29,  30. 

deemer  urges  as  a  motive  for  taking  his  yoke.  Besides  this  train 
of  thought,  there  seems  to  be  another  in  this  passage.  The  expres- 
sion my  yoke,  may  not  only  be  explained  :  "  the  yoke  which  I,  as 
ruler,  impose  upon  others,"  but  it  may  also  be  understood  :  "  the 
yoke  which  I  myself  bear  ;"  so  that  it  is  equivalent  to  the  cross  of 
Christ.  Viewed  in  this  light,  the  words  for  I  am  meek,  etc.,  also 
acquire  a  new  signification.  From  the  meekness  of  Jesus  in  carry- 
ing his  cross  or  yoke,  his  disciples  should  learn  the  same  disposition 
of  mind  ;  for  thereby  every  burden  becomes  easy,  and  every  suffer- 
ing is  overcome.  If  any  one  walks  under  the  burden  of  sin,  as  a 
common  burden  ;  if  he  bears  all  the  sufferings  of  time  as  the  con- 
sequences of  the  universal  guilt  of  mankind,  then  it  may  be  said  he 
walks  in  self-denying  love,  takes  upon  him  the  yoke  (does  not  mere- 
ly allow  it  to  be  imposed  upon  him),  and  thereby  finds  rest  for 
his  soul ;  for  disquietude  originates  in  self-will,  which  refuses  to 
bear  a  due  share  of  the  burden  of  sin.  According  to  this  train  of 
thought,  our  Eedeemer  regards  himself  also  as  a  bearer  of  the  cross 
and  yoke,  as  in  all  things  he  was  made  like  unto  men,  his  brethren  ; 
only,  that  he  did  not  bear  the  burden  on  his  own  account,  but  on 
ours.  It  is  only  to  this  mode  of  interpretation,  that  the  expression 
"  lowly  in  heart"  (raTreivbg  ry  icapdia)  is  suitable.  A  ruler  may,  with 
reference  to  his  subjects,  be  said  to  be  Ttpaoq,  meek,  but  not  rarreivos, 
lowly.  As  little,  therefore,  as  God  is  ever  said  to  be  lowly,  just  so 
little  is  the  Redeemer  in  his  divine  nature  ;  Tanetvo^poovvrjj  lowliness, 
is  the  character  only  of  the  creature  ;  and  Christ  calls  himself  lowly, 
only  in  so  far  as  he  is  man,  and  all  human,  as  well  as  divine  at- 
tributes, appertain  to  him.  Holy  Scripture  expresses  the  act  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  by  /cevow,  and  the  humiliation  of  the 
Son  of  God  as  man  by  raneivoo).  (Comp.  remarks  on  Philip,  ii.  6- 
8).  This  shews,  that  in  this  passage  the  Eedeemer  did  not  intend 
to  speak  of  himself  only  as  the  Son  of  God,  but  pointed  also  to  his 
human  nature  (and  the  divine  and  human  nature  must  be  consid- 
ered to  be  united  in  his  holy  person — a  union  miraculous,  and  to  us 
inconceivable  ) ;  he  to  whom  all  things  were  delivered  by  the  Father 
himself,  bears  the  yoke  with  us,  and  hence  puts  his  hand  along  with 
us  to  the  heavy  burdens  of  life  ;  and,  though  the  only  Lord,  he  is, 
at  the  same  time,  a  servant.  (Comp.  Matth.  xxiii.  4-11.)  He  not 
only  gives  commands,  but  enables  us  also  to  obey  them,  inasmuch  as 
he,  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  causes  that  they  do  not  appear  heavy. 
(1  John  v.  3.)  The  expression  ry  aapSia,  in  heart,  describes  the  hu- 
mility of  the  Redeemer,  as  in  entire  accordance  with  his  holy  will, 
and  originating  in  the  very  depth  of  his  heart ;  hence  humility  ap- 
pears in  him  as  the  cheerful  result  of  free  choice.  There  is,  then, 
certainly  a  difference  between  lowly  in  heart  and  lowly  in  spirit 
(ra-rreivbg  rut  Trvev^art)  =  Ijn  VBB,  Prov.  xxix.  23.  (Coinp.  Ps.  xxxiii. 


MATTHEW  XL  29,  30  ;   XII.  1.  437 


18  [LXX.]  with  TTTW^O^  T<3  TrvevfWTi,  Matth.  v.  3.)  The  latter  ex- 
pression denotes  an  attribute  of  sinful  man,  and  marks  what  is  laud- 
able only  in  so  far  as  the  knowledge  of  poverty  and  wretchedness  is 
a  condition  of  all  help  from  above  ;  but  in  this  sense  the  expression 
cannot  be  applied  to  Christ.  He  was  lowly  in  heart  but  elevated 
and  rich  in  spirit,  inasmuch  as  the  bent  of  his  will,  and  the  disposi- 
tion of  his  heart,  are  not  towards  what  is  high,  but  towards  what  is 
lowly.  His  humility  is  therefore  compassion  ;  but  the  use  of  ra?r«- 
voQpoovvT],  used  alike  of  the  perfectly  holy  One,  and  of  sinful  man, 
is  peculiar  to  the  language  of  Scripture.  Even  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  LXX.  use  it  for  expressions,  such  as  T^as,  w,  ^?,  corre- 
sponding with  the  terms  Tmo^of  and  Tamivos  of  the  New  Testament. 
Among  the  ancient  profane  writers,  the  term  is  very  rarely  (for  in- 
stance by  Plutarch)  used  in  a  noble  sense.  The  peculiar  use  of  the 
wordis  connected  with  a  peculiar  idea  which  belongs  to  revealed  relig- 
ion. Whilst  we  everywhere  meet,  in  the  natural  man,  with  a  striv- 
ing after  that  which  is  high,  which  originates  in  a  dim  consciousness  of 
his  deep  fall,  Scripture  teaches,  more  darkly  in  the  Old  Testament, 
more  distinctly  in  the  New,  that  the  safest  way  to  salvation,  and  to 
the  highest  exaltation,  is  to  humble  ourselves  to  the  lowest  poverty. 
It  is  only  in  the  lowest  depths  of  repentance,  and  of  bitter  self- 
knowledge  —  producing  a  compassionate  love  to  all  our  fellow-men 
—  that  the  soul  can  receive  the  powers  of  divine  life,  and  rise  again 
to  the  highest  exaltation.  In  the  life  of  our  Redeemer  who,  from 
love,  became  like  unto  sinful  man,  this  way,  which  alone  leads  to 
peace,  is  exemplified. 


§  17.  THE  DISCIPLES  PLUCK  EARS  OF  CORN. 

(Matth.  xii.  1-8 ;  Mark  ii.  23-28 ;  Luke  vi.  1-5.) 

In  the  subsequent  twelfth  chapter  of  Matthew,  the  Evangelist 
reports  several  events  (among  others,  a  cure  in  ver.  9,  seq.),  which, 
however,  pervaded  by  a  common  bond,  likewise  show  the  design  of 
Matthew  to  arrange  the  life  of  Jesus  according  to  certain  general 
classes  of  subjects.  It  is  the  rising  hostility  of  the  Pharisees  to 
Jesus,  by  which  all  the  single  events  in  this  section  are  connected, 
and  on  account  of  which  the  various  occurrences  seem  to  be  reported. 
It  is  probable,  from  the  more  minute  account  of  John,  that  the 
hostility  of  the  Pharisees  to  Jesus  assumed  a  decided  form,  only 
after  he  had  come  to  Jerusalem  for  the  celebration  of  the  feast. 
(John  v.  1,  seq.)  As,  however,  Matthew  pays  no  attention  either 
to  tune  or  place — restricting  his  communications  neither  to  Galilee 


438  MATTHEW  XII.  1. 

nor  to  any  other  locality* — as  he  narrates  without  mentioning 
places,  and  aims  only  to  exhibit  to  his  Jewish  readers  the  life 
of  Jesus  in  its  various  aspects,  we  must  here  also  give  up  any 
exact  arrangement  of  the  single  occurrences,  and  this  the  rather, 
because  inferences  respecting  it,  drawn  from  the  internal  character 
of  the  narratives,  cannot  but  be  arbitrary.  (Comp.  Dr.  Paulus' 
Commentary,  Th.  ii.  Anf.)  An  impartial  comparison  of  the  other 
two  Evangelists,  leads  to  the  same  result.  For,  although  Mark 
connects  the  narrative  of  the  cure  of  the  withered  hand,  immediately 
with  the  plucking  of  the  ears  of  corn,  yet  he  differs,  in  chap.  iii. 
7-19,  so  very  much  from  Matthew,  and  brings  forward  in  these 
verses  circumstances  so  entirely  different,  that  we  gain  nothing  for 
a  chronological  arrangement  by  his  coming  back  (iii.  20)  to  events 
which  Matthew  also  reports  in  this  chapter.  Luke  differs  from 
Matthew  still  more  strikingly  ;  inasmuch  as,  in  the  passage  parallel 
to  Matth.  xii.  22,  seq.,  he  enters  upon  the  record  of  the  last  journey 
of  Jesus  to  the  feast  (Luke  xi.  14,  seq.),  and  then  returns,  at  the 
end  of  the  chapter,  to  viii.  19,  seq. 

The  first  narrative  then — that  of  the  plucking  of  the  ears  of 
corn  by  the  disciples — is  introduced  by  Matthew,  with  the  very  in- 
definite expression :  "  at  that  time"  (&v  eiceivu  TO>  Kaipti) — a  formula 
admitting  of  wider  and  narrower  limits,  and  corresponding  to  the 
general  phrase  :  "  and  it  came  to  pass,"  of  Mark.  But  Luke  here 
uses  a  peculiar  expression  :  iv  oafipdru  devrepoTrpwroj.  From  this 
formula,  we  might  be  able,  perhaps,  to  infer  something  decisive  in 
favour  of  a  chronological  arrangement,  if  its  signification  were  not  so 
completely  indeterminate.  The  word  seems  to  have  been  formed 
by  Luke  himself,  and  is  not  met  with  either  in  the  Biblical  writings, 
or  any  where  else.  According  to  the  common  opinion,  which  was 
first  advanced  by  Scaliger,  the  expression  :  dev-EpoTTpurov  odj3(3arov 
is  meant  to  designate  the  first  Sabbath  after  the  second  day  of  the 
Passover  ;  so  that  it  might  be  resolved  into  :  odpfiarov  TTQUTOV  d-rrb 
6evT£pag  UTTO  TOV  nda^a.  For,  according  to  the  Mosaic  institution 
(Levit.  xxiii.  11-25),  the  first  ears  of  corn  were  offered  to  the  Lord 
on  the  second  day  of  the  Passover  (ns»n  rnh*»)  ;  and  from  this  day, 
seven  Sabbaths  were  counted  to  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  Sab- 
bath following  this  second  day  of  the  Passover,  is  thought  to  be  de- 
signated by  devTepoTTpwTov.  The  plucking  of  the  ripening  ears  by 
the  disciples  agrees  very  well  with  this  supposition  ;  yet,  it  must 
be  considered  that  the  harvest  was  protracted  until  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, which  indeed  was  the  real  Feast  of  Harvest ;  the  disciples 
might,  therefore,  have  walked  through  the  fields  at  a  later  period 

*  The  opinion  frequently  expressed  by  modern  critics,  that  Matthew  intended  to  give 
only  reports  of  Christ's  sojourn  in  Galilee,  has  been  refuted  in  the  Author's  "  Programme 
iiber  die  Aechtheit  des  Matthaeus." 


MATTHEW  XII.  1-4.  439 

also.  Furthermore,  Jesus  must  have  left  Jerusalem  very  soon,  if 
he  walked  through  the  fields  of  Galilee  on  the  first  Sabbath  after 
the  feast,  which,  as  it  is  well  known,  was  celebrated  during  seven 
days.  Finally — the  explanation  itself  is  indeed  ingenious,  and  pos- 
sibly correct,  but  proofs  of  it  are  wanting.  We  may  well  imagine, 
that  every  first  Sabbath  of  two  closely  following  each  other,  and,  as 
it  were,  belonging  to  one  another,  was  thus  named  ;  and  such  a  case 
frequently  occurred.  For,  in  the  three  great  festivals,  the  first  and 
the  last  of  the  seven  days  were  celebrated,  and  these  might  very 
easily  be  followed  or  preceded  by  a  Sabbath,  so  that  these  two  days 
of  rest  followed  each  other.  The  same  was  the  case  with  the  Pen- 
tecost and  new  moons.  The  first  of  these  two  days  of  rest  was  then 
called  devrepo-pfjTov.  In  favour  of  this  explanation,  although  it 
likewise  cannot  be  proven,  would  be  the  omission  of  the  article, 
which  points  in  a  manner  not  to  be  mistaken  to  several  adpfiara 
devTepo-rrpuTa.  (The  Hebrew  nao  or  -jina*  is  translated  by  the  LXX. 
sometimes  aa/3j3arov,  sometimes  adj3j3aray  and  both  the  forms  occur 
in  the  New  Testament  likewise.)  [It  is  best  to  assume  a  weekly 
Sabbath,  falling  between  the  two  festal  Sabbaths  of  a  festal  week. 
Comp.  my  Krit.  d.  ev.  G-esch.  §  79.] 

Ver.  2. — The  plucking  of  ears  of  corn,  in  so  far  as  it  was  done 
for  appeasing  hunger,  was  permitted  by  the  law  (Deut.  xxiii.  25)  ; 
it  was  only  forbidden  to  use  the  reaping-hook.  But  the  Pharisaic 
Micrology,  which  had  perverted  the  simple  Mosaic  commandment 
of  external  rest  into  a  grievous  institution,  added  the  plucking  of 
ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath-day  to  the  forbidden  labours.  They 
divided  all  business  into  thirty-nine  main  classes  (called  fathers), 
many  of  which,  moreover,  had  subdivisions  (called  daughters). 

Ver.  3,  4. — Jesus,  therefore,  endeavours  to  raise  them  from  their 
limited  standing-point  to  a  spirit  of  greater  freedom,  and  this,  in 
such  a  manner  that,  from  the  law  itself,  he  points  out  to  them  its 
free  application  ;  whence  he  would  derive  the  result,  that  the  law, 
with  its  arrangements,  must  be  understood  and  treated  spiritually. 
The  first  example  adduced  is  that  of  David.  The  well-known  nar- 
rative of  this  occurrence,  which  took  place  when  David  fled  before 
Saul,  is  found  in  1  Sam.  xxi.  1,  seq.  The  loaves  of  shew-bread 
(ap-ot  irpo6eaeu$  =  d^s  ei^),  were  placed  on  small  tables  in  the 
sanctuary  of  the  tabernacle.  (Exod.  xxxv.  13,  xxxix.  36.)  The 
addition  made  by  Mark  ii.  26,  Im  'Afiiddap,  under  Abiathar,  presents 
some  difficulties.  For,  according  to  the  narrative  in  the  Old  Test- 
ament, it  was  not  Abiathar,  but  hi^  father  Abimelech,  who  was  at 
that  time  high-priest ;  and  the  expression  era,  cannot  be  otherwise 
understood  than  at  the  time  when  he  was  in  office.  (Compare  Luke 
iii.  2,  iv.  27  ;  Acts  xi.  28.)  Bcza  considered  this  passage  an  inter- 
polation ;  but  there  is  no  ground  for  this  opinion.  The  MSS.  with 


440  MATTHEW  XII.  4-6. 

a  very  few  exceptions,  favour  the  reading.  It  is  most  simple  and 
natural  to  say  :  the  Evangelist  has  confounded  father  and  son,  which 
might  easily  happen,  as  Abiathar  was  the  better  known  of  the  two. 
If  any  one  will  not  admit  this  (to  which  I,  however,  can  see  as  little 
objection  as  to  the  adoption  of  various  readings),  we  might  suppose 
that  the  father  likewise  bore  the  name  of  Abiathar,  although  no 
proof  for  this  can  be  given.  [Jesus  does  not,  in  this  example,  teach 
that  one  may  break  a  commandment.  He  reasons  from  the  less  to 
the  greater.  "  David  broke  even  an  express  ceremonial  law ;  my 
disciples  have  not  even  done  that  (as  the  Pentateuch  nowhere  for- 
bad plucking  ears  on  the  Sabbath).  If  now  David — in  the  spiritual 
perception  that  the  object  of  this  shew-bread  ordinance  was  sensibly 
to  set  forth  good  works,  not  to  leave  God's  anointed  one  to  a  death 
by  starvation — overstept  the  letter  of  the  ordinance,  how  much 
more  may  my  disciples  appease  their  hunger  in  a  way  which  no  law 
forbids  !"  Thus  his  answer  does  not  raise  the  inquiry  whether  the 
fourth  commandment  is  binding,  but  how  it  is  to  be  fulfilled,  wheth- 
er in  Pharisaic  literalness — which  regards  plucking  the  corn  as  a 
violation  of  the  Sabbath,  but  not  hostility  and  falsehood  toward 
Jesus  ! — or  in  its  spirit.] 

Ver.  5. — Matthew  and  Mark,  taken  together,  give  us  the  discourse 
of  Jesus  complete.  Matthew  first  adduces  another  example  from 
the  Old  Testament,  from  which  it  may  be  seen  that  the  law  con- 
cerning the  rest  of  the  Sabbath  must  be  understood  spiritually. 
(Compare  John  v.  17,  where  Jesus,  from  the  unceasing  creative  ac- 
tivity of  God,  vindicates  an  unlimited  activity  for  himself  also.) 
According  to  Numb,  xxviii.  9,  certain  sacrifices  had  to  be  offered  up 
by  the  priests  in  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath  ;  this  duty  presupposed 
work  of  various  kinds,  and  yet  the  priests  were  without  guilt  in  it. 
[From  this  Jesus  draws  the  simple  conclusion  that  in  the  fourth 
commandment,  not  action  absolutely  is  forbidden,  but  action  in  our 
own  and  worldly  concerns.  Activity  in  the  work  of  God  is  both  al- 
lowed and  commanded.]  The  clause  :  odf3j3arov  fteft^ovv  =  na»  V^rj 
(Ez.  xx.  16),  is  therefore  to  be  understood  in  this  way  :  "  they  would 
(according  to  your  false  notions),  desecrate  the  Sabbath."  Evi- 
dently the  words  :  iv  TGJ  Jepw,  in  the  temple,  are  here  intended  to 
form  a  contrast  with  (3ef3r]Xovoi,  profane,  "  they  desecrate  it  in  that 
place  where,  on  account  of  its  holiness,  it  should  be  least  expected." 

Ver.  6. — From  the  temple,  Jesus  passes  over  to  the  then  existing 
circumstances.  Of  the  two  readings,  peifav  and  jue2£ov,  the  latter,  as 
being  more  difficult,  is  no  doubt  to  be  preferred.  It  is  supported, 
moreover,  by  very  important  authorities  among  the  MSS.  The 
pet&v  could  only  form  a  contrast  with  vojuof,  i.  e.,  the  author  of  the 
law — Moses — whilst  the  neuter  draws  a  parallel  between  the  rela- 
tions of  the  priests  to  the  temple  in  general,  and  the  relation  be- 


MATTHEW  XII.  6-8.  441 

tween  the  disciples  and  Christ.  The  sense  then  is  :  "  We  have  here 
to  do  with  a  much  greater  matter  than  the  temple  service  ;  if  even 
in  the  latter,  the  letter  of  the  law  could  be  understood  and  treated 
with  spiritual  freedom,  how  much  more  here."  True,  these  rela- 
tions derived  their  superiority  solely  from  his  personal  importance, 
and  hence  even  the  reading  ju«'£wv  gives  no  had  sense.  In  verse  8, 
the  same  thought  is  expressed  with  greater  precision. 

Ver.  7. — This  whole  reasoning  from  the  Old  Testament,  must 
already  have  convinced  the  Pharisees  how  little  they  had  understood 
the  sense  of  the  sacred  Book.  According  to  Matthew,  our  Kedeem- 
er  still  continues  to  bring  this  more  definitely  before  them.  They 
had  wished  to  censure  the  disciples  as  transgressors  of  the  law,  and 
in  this  very  censure  they  had  transgressed  it  themselves.  Their 
leaning  towards  externals  had  prevented  them  from  entering  into 
the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  writings,  and  so  they  had  not  un- 
derstood the  meaning  of  the  profound  words  of  Hosea  vi.  6  :  e/leov 
tffcvtw  not  ov  dvoiav,  I  desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice.  (Comp.  note 
on  Matth.  ix.  13.)  In  these  words  even  prophecy  pointed  forward 
to  the  spiritual  elevation  to  which  mankind  were  to  be  raised  by  the 
Gospel  ;  in  which,  it  is  not  the  external  deed,  but  the  internal  dis- 
position, and  especially  that  of  self-denying  merciful  love,  which  is 
truly  well-pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  compassionate  love 
was  wanting  in  the  censure  of  the  Pharisees.  They  had  no  concern 
for  the  real  improvement  of  the  disciples,  no  pure  zeal  for  the  cause 
of  God.  They  rather  sought  from  envy  and  inward  malice  to 
fasten  blame  on  the  disciples,  and  under  show  of  zeal  for  the  Lord 
in  reality  persecuted  the  Lord  himself  in  his  disciples.  They  con- 
demned the  guiltless  (KarediKaoav  rovg  dvairiovg)  •  for  the  disciples 
had  not  plucked  the  ears  of  corn  for  mere  pastime,  but  from  hunger 
(ver.  1)  ;  they  had  abandoned  their  own  possessions,  and  were 
famishing  amidst  their  toils  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  Hence,  they 
were  in  a  position  similar  to  that  of  David,  the  servant  of  God,  who, 
in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  hungered  likewise  with  his  followers ; 
and  to  that  of  the  priests  who  were  obliged  to  work  in  the  temple 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  who  thus,  from  the  Pharisaical  point  of  view, 
seemed  to  break  the  law  of  the  Lord. 

Ver.  8. — The  conclusion  of  our  Lord's  discourse  points  back  to 
his  own  exalted  rank,  and  hence  to  that  of  his  disciples.  In  Mark 
ii.  27,  it  is  preceded  by  a  rich  idea  :  "  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man, 
not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  Inasmuch  as  "  Sabbath"  stands  here  per 
synecdoche  for  the  law  with  all  its  ordinances,  the  Pharisaic  casu- 
istical view  of  the  Old  Testament  is,  in  these  words,  contrasted 
with  the  Christian,  free,  and  spiritual  view  of  it.  According  to  the 
former,  the  commands  themselves,  and  the  external  legal  observ- 
ance of  them,  are  the  end  to  which  man  is  only  subservient.  In 


442  MATTHEW  XII.  8. 

such  a  view  of  it,  the  law  is  a  grievous  hurden.  According  to  the 
Christian  view,  however,  man,  and  his  training  for  heaven,  are  the 
end;  whilst  the  commands  and  the  external  observance  of  them, 
are  only  means  for  this  end.  From  this  point  of  view,  the  law 
appears,  in  its  true  import,  as  a  gift  of  love  from  our  paternal  God, 
who  trains  man  by  means  of  external  ordinances,  only  until  he  be- 
comes able  to  receive  the  inward  law  in  his  heart.  (Jerem.  xxxi. 
33.)  It  is  impossible  that,  in  the  concluding  thought,  which  is 
common  to  all  the  three  Evangelists :  The  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath  (icvpios  TOV  oafipdrov  6  vlb^  TOV  avOpu-nov),  the  term, 
Son  of  Man,  should  be  parallel  to  man,  in  Mark  ii.  27;  for  although 
sinful  man  does  not  exist  on  account  of  the  law,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary the  law  exists  on  account  of  man,  yet  it  would  be  alto- 
gether unsuitable  to  say,  that  man  is  the  lord  of  the  law,  or  of  any 
one  of  the  legal  institutions.  He  only  could  say  so  of  himself,  who 
was  the  ideal  of  man.  Son  of  Man,  must  then  be  here  understood 
as  the  contrast  of  man,  and  hence  the  Messianic  dignity  of  the 
Redeemer  is  declared  in  this  expression.  Being  the  Lord  of  hea- 
ven (1  Cor.  xv.  47),  although  walking  here  on  earth  in  the  humble 
form  of  a  man,  the  Messiah  is  raised  above  every  legal  institution, 
inasmuch  as  his  will  is  the  law  itself ;  yet,  he  nowhere  appears  as 
abrogating  any  law,  but  as  fulfiling  it  in  a  spiritual  sense.  (Matth. 
v.  17.)  Thus  our  Redeemer  fulfils  the  Old  Testament  law  of  the 
Sabbath  also,  by  recommending  internal  repose  of  the  soul,  and 
rest  in  God.  [The  sense  is  not :  "I  am  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  law, 
and  hence  may  break  it ;"  but,  "  I  am  Lord  of  the  Sabbath;  the 
Lord  whose  work  must  be  done  on  the  Sabbath.  What  therefore 
my  disciples  do  on  the  Sabbath  in  my  service  (as  they  then  in  his 
companionship  and  service  appeased  their  hunger),  this  is  not 
breaking,  but  sanctifying  the  Sabbath.  I  am  the  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath, hence  it  is  for  me  to  determine  what  is  hallowing  the  Sab- 
bath." Here,  again,  the  question  is  not  of  the  validity  of  the  fourth 
commandment,  but  of  the  true,  spiritual  mode  of  fulfilling  it. — 
Christ  is  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  as  he  is  the  Lord  of  life,  and  as 
such  has  interpreted  the  command,  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  while  yet  he 
has  himself  so  perfectly  fulfilled  it,  that,  far  from  killing  others,  he 
submitted  to  death  like  a  lamb,  and  prayed  for  his  murderers.  It 
no  more  follows  from  his  being  the  'Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  that  he 
dispenses  with  the  fourth  commandment,  than  from  his  being  Lord 
of  life  that  he  dispenses  with  the  sixth.  He  teaches  us  only  to 
fulfil  it  in  its  spirit,  as  he  has  done,  not  by  literal  inactivity,  but 
by  rest  from  secular  labour,  and  by  spiritual  and  heavenly  employ- 
ment.] 


MATTHEW  XII.  9,  10.  443 

§  18.  JESUS  CUBES  A  WITHERED  HAND. 

(Matth.  xii.  9-21;  Mark  iii.  1-6;  Luke  vi.  6-12.) 

Ver.  9. — The  same  subject  is  still  farther  developed  on  another 
occasion,  when  Jesus  healed  a  sick  man.  He  avails  himself  of  this 
event,  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  Pharisees  to  a  more  spiritual  discern- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament ;  for,  notwithstanding  their  repugnance 
to  him,  our  Kedeemer  did  not  yet  give  them  up.  It  is  impossible 
not  to  observe  how  vague  are  the  formulas  of  transition  used  by 
Matthew.  The  words  :  fieraf3d^  itceWsv,  departing  thence,  would  lead 
us  to  connect  this  event  with  that  immediately  preceding  ;  but 
from  Luke  vi.  6,  we  see  that  at  least  eight  days  intervened,  and  that 
the  occurrence  now  to  be  narrated  happened  on  another  Sabbath. 
The  words,  "  he  came  into  their  synagogue,"  prove  as  clearly  that 
he  paid  no  attention  at  all  to  the  localities  ;  for  nothing  had  been 
previously  mentioned  to  shew  who  are  meant  by  the  their  (avr&v^) 
(The  xdp  fypd,  withered  hand  =  ^rjpannEvr]  by  Mark,  as  the  expres- 
sion so  naturally  derived  from  the  appearance  indicates,  is  a  hand 
lamed  by  paralysis,  and  deprived  of  vital  power ;  a  mere  luxation  is 
here  out  of  the  question.)* 

Ver.  10. — According  to  Matthew,  the  Pharisees  endeavoured  to 
entrap  Jesus  by  an  insidious  question  ;  Luke  and  Mark  allude,  in 
general,  to  their  malicious  intentions,  but  do  not  introduce  them  as 
speaking.  (The  word  naparripeu  is  often  used  by  Luke  in  the  signi- 
fication, insidiose  observare  [Luke  xiv.  1 ;  xx.  20.]  In  Gal.  iv.  10 
it  has  another  cognate  signification,  superstitiose  observare.  The 
notion  of  anxious  observation  is  common  to  both.)  Christ,  however, 
perceived  their  intention,  not  merely  from  the  question  (for  that 
might  have  originated  from  a  well-meaning  disposition  also),  but  by 
his  power  of  discerning  hearts,  which  was  very  different  from  mere 
reflective  conjectures  concerning  their  intention  (Comp.  remarks  on 
John  ii.  25.  —Concerning  the  titakoyiaiioi  [Luke  vi.  8],  comp.  note  on 
Luke  ii.  35 ;  Matth.  ix.  4). — Mark  and  Luke,  again,  detail  the  out- 
ward circumstances  of  this  event  far  more  graphically  than  Mat- 
thew. They  describe  how  Jesus  ordered  the  sick  man  to  come 
forward,  so  that  he  might  be  seen  by  all ;  and  how  he  then,  by 
directing  their  looks  to  the  sufferer,  endeavoured  to  rouse  the  con- 
sciences of  those  men  who  were  dead  in  a  fancied  observance  of  the 

*  In  the  apocryphal  additions  to  the  genuine  Gospel  of  Matthew,  as  Jerome  found 
them  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  this  sick  man  was  declared  to  have  been  a  ccemeti' 
tarius.  Jerome  (Comm.  in  Matth.  p.  47)  writes  that  he  said :  "  Caementarius  eram, 
manibus  victum  quseritans;  precor  te,  Jesu,  ut  mihi  restituas  sanitatem,  ne  turpiter 
mendicem  cibos."  (Comp.  my  Gesch.  derEvang.,  p.  78, 


444  MATTHEW  XII.  10-14. 

law.  The  question,  however,  which  Jesus  puts  to  the  assembled 
Pharisees  (Mark  iii.  4 ;  Luke  vi.  9)  is  singular  in  its  character.  For 
the  question  at  issue  seemed  to  be  not  about  doing  good  or  evil,  but 
about  doing  or  not  doing.  But  it  is  from  this  contrast,  so  apt  to 
mislead  them,  that  our  Saviour  wished  to  free  them,  and  to  point 
out  to  them  that  the  not  doing  might  often  be  a  sin.  Now,  how- 
ever, it  was  clear  that  man  should  not  sin  on  the  Sabbath,  any  more 
than  on  another  day  ;  and  hence  (so  Christ  argued)  it  might,  under 
peculiar  circumstances,  not  only  be  permitted,  but  even  be  a  duty, 
to  work  on  the  Sabbath  day.  [Here  also  the  only  question  is  of  the 
mode  of  observance,  not  of  the  sanctity,  of  the  Sabbath.  Kescuing, 
ransoming,  saving,  belongs  to  the  Sabbath.  Doing  evil  and  indulg- 
ing in  malice,  as  the  Pharisees  did,  is  desecrating  the  Sabbath.] 

Ver.  11. — Matthew  goes  on  to  narrate  how  the  Redeemer  ap- 
pealed to  the  consciences  of  all  those  who  were  present — asking, 
whether,  they  would  not,  on  the  Sabbath,  draw  out  a  sheep,  from  a 
well  into  which  it  had  happened  to  fall.  Jesus  draws  an  inference 
a  minor i  ad  majus:  how  much  more  is  the  faithful  Shepherd  of 
souls  bound  to  save  on  the  Sabbath  day  a  little  sheep  of  his  flock 
which  had  fallen  into  the  pit  of  perdition  !  This  indeed  is  a  verita- 
ble Sabbath-work,  a  true  service  of  G-od  !  (The  same  thought,  in 
a  somewhat  different  connection,  is  found  in  Luke  xiv.  5.  For 
{360vvog,  pit,  Luke  has  0peap,  well  =  i1^.)  The  Pharisees  held  their 
peace  (Mark  iii.  4),  and  hence  confessed  themselves  overcome  by 
the  truth  of  the  discourse  (Luke  xiv.  5).  This  susceptibility, 
coupled  with  so  much  hardness,  awakened  anger  in  the  heart  of  the 
Redeemer  :  Tcepij3Xei^dnevo^  avrovg  jt/er*  6py  fjg  av  AAv  nov  pevo  $ 
im  ry  Trupuoei  TI}<;  Kapdiag  avr&v  (Mark  iii.  5).  A  sorrowful,  sympa- 
thizing anger  is  not  at  all  a  contradiction.  It  is  only  in  sinful  man 
that  boiling  rage  stifles  the  more  gentle  feelings  of  sorrow  and  sym- 
pathizing grief.  •  In  our  Redeemer,  as  in  the  heart  of  God,  the 
glow  of  anger  is  identical  with  love  ;  whilst  he  hates  sin,  he  has 
mercy  upon  the  sinner.  (The  substantive  Trupumg  is,  besides  in  this 
passage,  found  only  in  Rom.  xi.  25 ;  Eph.  iv.  18.  The  verb,  on  the 
other  hand,  occurs  frequently.  It  is  derived  from  Trwpof,  callus,  and 
signifies  "  obduracy,"  "  insensibility,"  especially  to  moral  impres- 
sions.) 

Ver.  13. — After  this  address,  which  so  deeply  struck  their  hearts, 
our  Redeemer  cures  the  sick  man.  ^A.rroK,adiarri^L  of  bodily  heal- 
ing =  sis  Exod.  iv.  7  ;  in  like  manner  Matth.  viii.  25.  It  signifies, 
primarily,  in  integrum  restituere,  to  restore  to  the  former,  original 
condition.  Thus  often  in  a  spiritual  sense.  Compare  note  on  Matth. 
xvii.  11.) 

Ver.  14. — The  disclosure  of  sin  either  awakens  repentance,  or, 
if  man  is  insensible  to  it,  anger;  so  also  with  the  Pharisees.  The 


MATTHEW  XII.  14, 15.  445 

host  of  priests,  attacked  in  their  most  secret  sin,  joined  for  the  de- 
fence of  their  kingdom.  There  was  no  longer  the  opposition  of  in- 
dividuals, but  of  a  powerful  body,  whose  enmity  was  called  forth  by 
the  light  which  emanated  from  Christ.  According  to  Mark  iii.  6, 
the  crafty  priests  immediately  attempted  to  form  a  coalition  with 
the  secular  powers ;  "  They  took  counsel  with  the.  Herodians  (jierd 
r&v  'Hpw&avwv  avppovkiov  i-noiovv).  These  Herodians  were  courtiers 
and  adherents  of  Herod  Antipas,  the  ruler  of  Galilee  (Matth.  xxii. 
16  ;  Mark  xii.  13),  whom  the  Pharisees  undertook  to  gain  over  to 
their  interests,  because  they  could  effect  nothing  without  the  secu- 
lar power.*  Their  wicked  intentions  became  evident  even  at  that 
time  ;  they  hardened  their  hearts  against  the  beneficent  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  i^r\oQr\aav  dvoiag,  they  were  filled  with  folly, 
as  Luke  vi.  11  very  significantly  expresses  it,  for  every  departure 
from  God  is  folly. 

Ver.  15. — But  as  the  hour  had  not  yet  come,  in  which  the  Lord 
was  to  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies  (Matth.  xxvi.  45), 
he  left  them  and  withdrew  into  retirement.  The  narrative  of  Matth. 
xii.  15, 16,  finishes  with  the  same  kind  of  general  formula,  as  we 
have  already  frequently  met  with  (iv.  23,  seq.;  ix.  35,  seq.).  Ac- 
cording to  the  parallel  passage  (Mark  iii.  7,  seq.),  Jesus  went  to  the 
Lake  of  Gennesaret,  and,  among  the  multitudes  who  sought  him 
there,  there  were  not  only  persons  from  Idumea,  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
but  also  from  Judea  and  Jerusalem — (Comp.  iii.  22,  where  ypa^arel^ 
dnb  'lepooo^vjjiuv  Karaftavreg  are  expressly  mentioned) ;  which  clearly 
proves  that  Jesus  had  already  exercised  his  ministry  in  Judea  and 
Jerusalem.  It  is  probable  that  many  events  narrated  by  Matthew 
and  Mark  happened  in,  or  around  Jerusalem  :  only,  the  Evangelists 
omit  any  mention  of  the  locality ;  no  intimation  is  to  be  found  that, 
before  his  last  journey  to  the  feast,  Jesus  limited  the  sphere  of  his 
ministry  to  Galilee.  According  to  the  farther  account  of  Mark  (iii. 
19),  the  throng  of  people  was  so  great,  that  they  became  trouble- 
some to  our  Lord  (6Mj3etv),  and  he  was  obliged  to  enter  into  a  ves- 
sel in  order  that  thence  he  might  be  able  to  teach  them.  (In  the 
phrase :  Iva  nhoidpiov  irpoonapTepq  avrw,  the  expression  -rrpooKapTepelv 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  prcesto  esse,  "  to  be  at  one's  disposal.")  Here 
also  Jesus  endeavoured  earnestly  and  impressively  to  inculcate 
(  inerifia),  that  his  abode  and  dignity  should  not  be  made  known, 
(Iva  fii]  favepbv  avrbv  noirioGKH,  Mark  iii.  12  ;  Matth.  xii.  16.)  Ac- 
cording to  the  context,  this  command  of  Jesus  chiefly  implies  that 
he  wished  every  political  movement  in  his  favour  to  be  avoided  on 
the  part  of  those  Jews  who  were  filled  with  false  notions  concerning 
the  Messiah,  that  he  might  thus  take  from  his  adversaries  every 

*  The  uncritical  Hpiphanius  describes  the  Herodians  as  a  religious  sect.     (Epiph. 
Haer.  Ossen.  p.  44.) 


446  MATTHEW  XII.  15-20. 

even  apparent  occasion  of  accusing  him.  (Compare,  concerning 
this,  the  remarks  on  Matth.  viii.  4.) 

Ver.  17 — Matthew  avails  himself  of  this  quiet  retirement  of 
Jesus,  which  contrasted  so  strikingly  with  the  tumultuous  enter- 
prises of  the  false  Chris  ts  of  a  later  period,  to  quote  a  remarkable 
passage  of  the  Old  Testament  (Isaiah  xlii.  1-4)  in  which  this  cha- 
racter of  the  Messiah  is  pointed  out.  The  Messiah  is  there  described 
as  possessing  the  same  gentleness  and  meekness  as  he  had  displayed 
in  his  discourse,  Matth.  xi.  28-30.  (On  the  omjf  TTvb/pwflf/,  comp. 
remarks  on  Matth.  i.  22.) 

Ver.  18. — This  quotation  of  the  Old  Testament  is  also  treated 
in  a  peculiar  way.  Matthew  follows  neither  the  LXX.,  nor  the 
Hebrew  text  verbatim;  on  the  contrary,  he  makes  use  of  the  text 
for  his  purpose  in  a  free  translation.  The  LXX.  have,  in  the  first 
place,  added  to  the  translation  their  own  exposition ;  they  add  to 
Isaiah  xlii.  1 :  'lewcw/S  6  Ttalg  pov,  'loparih  6  EK^SKTO^  jj-ov.  The  reference 
of  this  passage  to  Israel,  i.  e.,  to  the  whole  body  of  the  truly  faith- 
ful among  the  people,  is,  indeed,  not  incorrect  :  but  Matthew  could 
not  make  use  of  it  for  his  purpose  (at  least,  not  without  an  explan- 
ation); hence  he  adheres  to  the  words  of  the  original  text  •|TrlB.i  ""i*? 
which  presented  a  more  natural  reference  to  Jesus,  and  translates 
by  I6ov  the  in  omitted  by  the  LXX.  But,  with  full  warrant,  the 
Evangelist  refers  these  words  to  Jesus,  inasmuch  as  our  Kedeemer 
was  not  only  a  member  of  the  collective  body  of  the  true  worship- 
pers of  Grod  in  Israel,  but  their  representative  ;  and  many  expressions, 
especially  ver.  4  (&*??.  f1**  '•.rnin^),  shew  that  the  prophet  had  such 
an  one  in  his  view.  The  word  yperiaa  (Heb.  tfans,  LXX,  -rrpooede^aro) 
from  afpe~/<yw,  which  is  found  only  in  this  passage,  differs  from  the 
signification  of  the  word  in  the  original  text ;  yet  the  word  span  "  to 
seize,"  "  to  lay  hold  on,"  =  a/pew,  might  perhaps  be  taken  in  that 
sense.  The  word  N-^/P  the  LXX  render  better  by  K^oiaei,  than  Mat- 
thew by  dTrayyeAeZ.  Perhaps  Matthew  chose  the  expression  on  ac- 
count of  the  subsequent  prophetical  discourses  of  Christ  concerning 
the  judgment. 

Ver.  19. — The  words  of  this  and  of  the  following  verses,  extol  the 
gentle  character  of  this  beloved  Son  of  God.  Matthew  has  trans- 
posed the  first  two  expressions,  the  words,  of  the  Hebrew  text  being 
8fc\  xVi  p?*1:  «'!>,  he  shall  not  cry,  nor  strive  (the  LXX  have  dvfoei 
instead  of  ipiaei.)  In  the  subsequent  clause  yin?  (LXX,  £&)  is 
rendered  freely,  ev  ral<;  Trhareiats,  and  has  no  doubt  a  reference  to 
the  dvaxupelv  (etc  rrjv  tprniov)  in  ver.  15. 

Ver.  20. — As  ver.  19  described  the  quiet,  noiseless  ministry  of 
Christ  (for  all  the  noise  and  tumult  connected  with  his  ministry 
proceeded  not  from  Jesus,  but  from  the  people  ;  our  Lord  always 
endeavoured  to  quell  the  tumult),  which  the  carnally-minded  Jews 


MATTHEW  XII.  20,  21.  447 

had  not  at  all  expected  of  the  Messiah,  inasmuch,  as,  in  their  vain 
mind,  they  imagined  that  he  would  appear  in  noisy  splendour,  and 
tumultuous  glory;  so  this  verse  expresses  his  condescending  affabil- 
ity, ministering  to  the  necessities  of  the  suffering  and  feeble.  The 
expressions,  ndXa^og  avvTerpin^evog,  a  crushed  reed,  and  Atvof  rv<j)6- 
lievog,  smoking  flax,  are  natural  figures  of  the  broken,  perishing  life; 
it  is  represented  as  the  business  of  the  Messiah  again  to  strengthen 
and  excite  it.  The  last  words  from  Isaiah  xlii.  3  :  tssww  ami1*  tiJg${, 
he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  unto  truth,  which  the  LXX.  renders 
d$  dhr'ideiav  K^oiaei  repioiv,  Matthew  has  rendered  with  a  deviation : 
£wf  av  iKftdty  rr\v  npiaiv  dg  vlicog,  which  latter  expression  would 
rather  suggest  hM.V.  (Comp.  2  Sam.  ii.  26.)  We  may  suppose  that 
the  Evangelist  had  another  reading  before  him,  or,  that  the  words 
elg  vlicog  are  explanatory  of  dg  d^deiav ;  for  the  carrying  out  of  the 
Kpiaig  to  the  d/b/0em  is  indeed  the  victory.* 

Yer.  21. — Matthew  has  omitted  the  first  words  of  Isaiah  xlii.  4, 
thinking  them  less  adapted  to  his  purpose  ;  but  he  quotes  the  con- 
cluding words  siVh^  b^s  to1?^,  the  isles  shall  wait  for  his  law, 
which  he  renders  :  TGJ  dv6p.ari  edvrj  Ihmovoi,  in  his  name  shall  the 
nations  trust;  and  this  agrees  verbatim  with  the  LXX.  We  can- 
not but  notice  here  the  exact  agreement  with  the  LXX,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Hebrew  text,  when  looking  at  the  former  deviation  ;  and 
this  can  hardly  be  otherwise  explained  than  by  a  different  reading. 
For  the  very  word  •urnhn's  must  have  appeared  to  Matthew  very  suit- 
able for  his  purpose.  As  regards  the  Messianic  explanation  of  this 
whole  passage,  it  has  lately  been  defended  by  Umbreit,  in  his  beau- 
tiful treatise  on  the  servant  of  God  (Heidelberger  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  B.  L  H.  2.)  This  intelligent  expositor  has  very  correctly 
understood  the  idea  of  the  suffering  and  victorious  innocence,  and 
of  the  moral  power  of  the  servant  of  God,  who  is  no  other  than  the 
Lord  and  King  Jehovah ;  only  he  appears  to  overlook  the  identity 
of  the  servant  of  God  in  the  various  passages.  The  difficulty  of 
referring  the  various,  and  apparently  contradictory,  attributes  to 
one  individual,  disappears  when  we  suppose  the  idea  of  a  multi- 
plicity being  represented  by  a  unity.  The  various  expositions  of 
this  difficult  passage  concerning  the  servant  of  God  (from  Isaiah 
xl.  to  Ixvi.)  according  to  which,  either  the  whole  nation  of  the  pious 
or  the  prophets  in  the  nation,  are  thereby  understood,  are  not  in 
strict  contradiction  to  the  Bible  or  Messianic  exposition,  inasmuch 
as  all  this  is  implied  in  the  idea  of  the  Messiah.  The  Messiah  re- 
presents the  ideal  of  the  true  Israel,  whilst  the  pious  and  the  pro- 
phets represent  it  as  it  actually  existed. 

*  Others,  as  for  example  Gesenius  (on  this  passage),  translate  mjt*  by  " mildness" 
a  signification  justly  not  admitted  by  Umbreit,  in  the  treatise  which 'will  be  presently 
quoted. 


448  MATTHEW  XII.  22. 


§  19.  OF  THE  CALUMNIES  OF  THE  PHARISEES.    JESUS'  SEVEBE 
EEBUKES  OF  THEM. 

(Matth.  xii.  22-45;  Mark  iiL  20-30;  Luke  xl  14-26,  29^-32.) 

To  suppose  a  more  intimate  connexion  of  the  narrative  which 
follows,  with  what  precedes,  is  in  Matthew,  out  of  the  question,  in- 
asmuch, as,  after  the  general  formulas  in  ver.  15,  16,  the  narrative 
is  taken  up  by  a  simple  TOTE,  then.  In  Luke  xi.  14,  seq.,  we  find 
ourselves  transported  into  a  perfectly  strange  region  ;  and  Mark  iii. 
20  again  leads  us  back  to  the  sending  forth  of  the  twelve  Apostles, 
where  the  report  of  their  return  is  followed  by  an  indefinite  :  ical 
owepxerat  irdhiv  o%/tof,  and  a  multitude  again  come  together.  The 
addition,  however,  in  ver.  22,  "the  scribes  that  had  come  down 
from  Jerusalem,"  renders  it  probable,  that  a  feast  in  Jerusalem  has 
preceded.  But,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  uncertain  which  of  the  feasts 
is  to  be  understood ;  and,  on  the  other,  we  might  suppose  the  jour- 
ney of  the  scribes  not  at  all  connected  with  a  feast ;  a  supposition 
admissible,  only,  if  these  doctors  were  Galileans.  But  since  this  is 
not  mentioned,  we  may  conceive  that  they  were  emissaries  sent  out 
by  the  chief  men  of  Jerusalem,  and  these  might  arrive  at  any  time 
in  Galilee.  At  all  events,  it  will  not  do  to  attempt  to  determine 
what  has  been  left  undetermined.  In  Mark  iii.  21,  another  remark- 
able circumstance  is  added,  which  will  presently  occupy  our  atten- 
tion (at  Matth.  xii.  46);  but  then  he  immediately  states  the 
impudent  charge  of  the  Pharisees  against  the  Lord,  without  referring 
to  the  cause  which  called  it  forth.  Matthew  thus  represents  the 
opposition  of  the  Pharisees  in  its  gradual  growth,  until  it  reaches 
its  climax,  in  accusing  Christ  of  a  connexion  with  the  kingdom  of 
the  evil  one,  and  of  madness. 

Ver.  22. — According  to  Matthew,  the  cure  of  a  demoniac,  who 
was  at  the  same  tune  dumb  and  blind,  was  the  occasion  of  the  im- 
pudent accusations  of  the  Pharisees.  (Luke  xi.  14  points  out  his 
dumbness  only,  without  however  denying  that  he  was  blind  also.) 
The  sick  man  must  have  suffered  from  the  extraordinary  form  of 
disease,  as  it  is  only  thus  that  the  remarkable  astonishment  of  the 
multitude,  and  the  inferences  which  they  draw  from  the  cure,  can 
be  accounted  for.  (Matth.  xii.  23  uses  the  phrase  :  l&a-avTo  -ndvr^ 
ol  8%hoi.  The  verb  as  well  as  the  noun  eKoraaig  are,  in  the  New 
Testament,  frequently  used  to  express  violent  terror  or  astonish- 
ment ;  [Mark  ii.  12,  v.  42 ;  Luke  v.  26  ;  Acts  iii.  10.]  Concerning 
vlbg  TOV  Aaj3i'cJ,  compare  remarks  on  Luke  i.  35.)  It  is  clear,  how- 
ever, that  the  sick  person  is  called  demoniac,  not  because  he  was 


MATTHEW  XII.  22-26.  449 

dumb  or  blind,  or,  as  in  the  present  case,  both  at  the  same  time, 
but  because  these  affections  in  him  were  accompanied  by  other 
physical  and  psychical  phenomena  which  pointed  to  spiritual  influ- 
ences. (Compare  the  remarks  on  Matth.  vii.  9,  27,  seq.) 

Ver.  24.  The  more  striking  was  the  deed  of  Christ,  and  the  more 
the  wonder  and  sympathy  of  the  simple  multitude  were  excited  by 
the  cure  of  a  most  unfortunate  being  who  seemed  to  be  cut  off  from 
all  living  intercourse — the  more  fearful  was  the  wrath  of  the  priestly 
company,  who  doubtless  perceived  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  would 
annihilate  their  dominion.  They  breathed  blasphemy  into  the  hearts 
of  the  simple-minded,  by  insinuating  that  the  powerful  effects  which 
were  moving  them,  were  the  work  not  of  the  Holy  One,  but  of  the 
unholy  one.  As  mighty  effects  infer  mighty  causes,  they  accused 
him  of  a  union  with  Beelzebub.  (Compare  the  remarks  on  Mark  x. 
25.)  The  accusation  formerly  made  (dapovtov  g%ei,  Matth.  xi.  18)  was 
less  severe.  It  is  true  the  phrase  6aifj.6viov  £%ei,  he  hath  a  devil,  is  by 
no  means  =  fiaiveoOai,  being  mad,  as  John  x.  20  clearly  shews,  where 
both  the  phrases  are  connected  by  means  of  tcai,  and  hence  cannot  be 
identical  unless  we  suppose  the  writer  to  have  made  use  of  a  gross 
tautology.  The  madness  indeed,  may  be  conceived  of  as  the  conse- 
quence of  the  demoniacal  possession,  and  being,  as  such,  if  not  neces- 
sarily, at  least  commonly  connected  with  the  daifioviov  e%eiv,  it  might 
be  supplied  even  here.  But,  in  itself,  dai^oviov  e%8iv,  signifies  only 
"  to  be  ruled  over,  to  be  guided  by  an  evil  spirit"  =  e%eodai  VTTO  6ai- 
fioviov.  The  difference  therefore  betwixt  this  expression  and  that 
used  in  xii.  24,  consists  in  this,  that  here  a  direct  influence  of  the 
dp%uv  T&V  6aifj,ovMv,  the  prince  of  the  devils,  is  asserted,  while,  in  the 
other  passage,  merely  that  of  an  evil  being  in  general ;  and  farther, 
that  the  performance  of  miracles  by  means  of  the  power  of  darkness, 
presupposes  a  peculiar  wickedness  of  disposition  ;  whereas  in  the 
having  a  devil,'  there  is  assumed  rather  an  unconscious  state  of  de- 
pendence upon  the  evil  one. 

Ver.  25,  26. — Jesus  knew  their  hearts  (see  Luke  vi.  8),  and  the 
evil  thoughts  that  were  in  them.  (Concerning  diahoyioftoi,  diavoTjfta, 
frdvprjoeig,  comp.  remarks  on  Luke  ii.  35  ;  Matth.  ix.  4.)  He  first  en- 
deavoured to  instruct  them  by  means  of  arguments,  and  a  represen- 
tation of  the  circumstances.  (According  to  Mark  iii.  23,  £v  Trapa(3o- 
A-aZf,  on  which  comp.  Matth.  xiii.  3.  The  parabolical  character  of 
the  discourse  is  particularly  obvious  in  Mark  iii.  27.)  This  endeav- 
our of  the  merciful  Redeemer  who  knew  what  was  in  their  hearts,  is 
consolatory.  We  infer  from  it,  that  he  perceived  in  their  hearts 
the  germs  of  something  better,  to  the  quickening  of  which  he  might 
direct  his  instructions.  Had  these  unfortunate  men,  who  called 
light  darkness,  and  converted  that  which  was  holy  into  an  unholy 
thing,  not  been  blinded  by  passion,  they  would  then  have  committed 

VOL.  L— 29 


450  MATTHEW  XII,  25,  26. 

the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  (Matth.  xii.  32),  and  thus  have  been 
deprived  of  all  hope  of  forgiveness.  But  it  is  inconceivable  that  our 
Saviour  should  have  addressed  to  those  who  could  not  he  redeemed, 
words  having  a  tendency  to  deliver  them  from  their  error  !  For 
Jesus  endeavours,  first,  to  lay  open  before  them  the  contradictory 
character  of  their  charge.  He  compares  a  kingdom,  a  town,  a  fam- 
ily, in  short  any  united  community,  with  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  and 
argues  thus  :  As  nothing  of  this  kind  can  maintain  its  existence 
without  a  certain  order  and  union  of  the  members,  so  neither  can 
the  kingdom  of  darkness.  (Mepi&odat,  diafj.epi^eaBai,  denote  "  to  be 
in  a  state  of  internal  division,  mutual  strife  ;"  they  are  the  reverse 
of  ivovaOat.  In  like  manner  tprjuovoOai,  ov%  toraaOat  denote  "  to  be 
cut  off  from  existence  and  subsistence"  =  reAof  K%eiv}  Mark  iii.  26.) 
The  whole  argumentation,  however,  seems  somewhat  obscure.  We 
might  in  fact  regard  it  as  the  very  essence  of  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness, that  peace  and  unity  are  wanting,  and  that  strife  rules  in  their 
stead.  How  then  can  an  inference  against  strife  be  drawn  from  the 
nature  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  ?  We  might  answer  to  this  re- 
mark of  Christ  against  the  charge  of  his  opponents:  "this  very  cir- 
cumstance, that  evil  is  in  strife  with  itself,  proves  that  it  cannot 
have  a  lasting  existence."  But  the  difficulty  will  be  removed,  if  we 
consider  that  the  Lord  does  not  say  :  "  No  kingdom,  town,  or  fam- 
ily in  which  there  is  strife  (namely,  among  the  members  who  con- 
stitute the  community),  can  stand  ;"  for  in  that  case  we  should  be 
obliged  to  say  that  there  is  no  kingdom,  town,  or  family  at  all,  for 
there  is  none  in  which  there  is  not  some  strife.  He,  on  the  con- 
trary, only  very  wisely  expresses  himself  thus  :  No  kingdom,  nor  any 
similar  united  community,  can  stand,  if,  as  such,  it  be  divided 
against  itself.  If,  then,  strife  be  not  silenced  in  a  kingdom,  so  far 
as  it  stands  in  opposition  to  another  kingdom,  it  must  be  regarded  as 
dissolved:  but  if,  in  this  opposition,  it  keep  together  as  a  living 
unity,  then  the  internal  divisions  among  its  individual  members  do 
not  make  its  existence  impossible.  Jesus  thus  does  not  deny  that 
there  are  divisions  in  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  for  that  is  rather  its 
nature  ;  but  this  he  maintains,  that  it  forms  a  united  community  in 
opposition  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  for  this  reason  also  that  it 
is  said :  "if  Satan  cast  out  Satan."  This  passage  therefore  cannot 
be  made  use  of  to  prove  that  oaravag  stands  for  evil  angels  in  gen- 
eral. (Compare  above  the  remarks  on  Matth.  viii.  28.)  On  the  con- 
trary, it  signifies,  as  the  article  shews,  the  prince  of  the  devils.  This 
ruler,  being  the  representative  of  the  whole,  cannot  be  against  him- 
self, otherwise  he  could  not  (and  with  him  his  kingdom,  which  is 
himself)  maintain  such  an  opposition  to  that  which  is  good.  More- 
over, that  here  "  a  kingdom  of  the  evil  spirits  is  assumed,  cannot 
possibly  be  doubted  when  viewed  exegetically,"  even  according  to 


MATTHEW  XII.  26-29.  451 

the  opinion  of  Dr.  Paulus  (Com.  Th.  ii.  S.  89).  Hence  it  will  be 
necessary  to  have  recourse  to  artificial  means,  to  remove  this  trou- 
blesome doctrine  from  Holy  Scripture. 

Ver.  27,  28. — After  having  thus  proved  the  absurdity  of  the 
supposition,  that  Beelzebub  would  attack  his  own  kingdom,  Jesus 
passes  to  another  objection.  Jews  also  cast  out  demons  (ol  viol  vp&v* 
— the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  are  considered  as  fathers  in  the  faith, 
and  hence,  as  fathers  of  the  faithful  Jews),  by  whom  (iv  rtvi)  do 
they  cast  them  out  ?  This  question  is  based  on  the  principle  :  no 
effect  without  a  cause  ;  now,  as  the  Pharisees  acknowledged  the 
cures  of  Jewish  exorcists,  they  were  obliged  to  assign  a  cause  for 
them.  They  could  not  assume  an  evil  power,  partly  from  what  has 
been  previously  said,  and  partly  because  the  general  popular  notions 
would  not  have  admitted  of  it  ;  hence  there  remained  no  alterna- 
tive, but  to  assume  a  good  power.  From  these  slight  demonstra- 
tions of  a  good  power  appearing  seldom,  and  isolated,  the  Lord 
reasons  to  the  host  of  cures  of  otherwise  incurable  diseases,  which 
he  had  effected,  and  hence  concludes  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand.  The  kingdom  of  God  must  here  be  taken  generally  as  that 
order  of  things,  in  which  divine  influences  are  triumphant  in  the 
present  economy  of  the  world.  This  then  was  very  properly  con- 
nected with  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  and  in  so  far  the  expres- 
sion signifies  the  Messianic  times.  (Instead  of  iv  Trvevfwm,  Luke  xi. 
20  has  h  SaKTvXu  Qeov,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  SSSN 
[comp.  Exod.  viii.  19  :  a^n  °"^^  3>?:sN.]  It  is  =  v},%dp,  hand,  a  figura- 
tive expression  for  power,  with  the  accessory  idea  of  a  manifestation 
of  divine  power,  more  secret  and  difficult  to  be  perceived.)  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  Jewish  notions  of  evil  spirits,  and  of  their  cast- 
ing out,  were  mixed  up  with  much  superstition.  Josephus  (Bell. 
Jud.  vii.  6,  3)  relates,  that  there  grew  a  root  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Machaerus,  by  means  of  which  evil  spirits  were  cast  out,  whom  he 
considers  as  the  spirits  of  wicked  men  (JTOVTJQ&V  dvOpu-rruv  -rrvEv^ara). 
The  same  writer  relates  in  his  Antiq.  viii.  21,  5,  an  instance  of  ex- 
orcising by  means  of  such  roots,  with  the  aid  of  Solomonic  formulas 
of  incantation.  In  like  manner,  an  evil  spirit  is  cast  out  by  means 
of  the  liver  of  a  fish  in  Tob.  viii.  2.  But  such  an  admixture  of  su- 
perstition does  not  prove  there  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  thing  itself 
no  truth  to  which  the  false  notions  were  attached.  We  may  well 
imagine,  that  many  Jewish  exorcists,  by  faith  in  the  help  from 
above,  performed  acts  which  had  some  resemblance  to  the  cures 
effected  by  Jesus  (Acts  xix.  14)  ;  only,  that  they  must  be  regarded 
as  feebler  and  isolated  effects  of  spiritual  power. 

Ver.  29. — How  thoroughly  Jesus  comprehends  the  struggle  be- 

*  Chrysostom  understands  by  this  expression,  the  apostles ;  no  doubt  he  thought  that 
ho  could  uot  ascribe  to  the  Jews  the  gift  of  casting  out  demons. 


452  MATTHEW  XII.  29,  30. 

tween  good  and  evil,  is  shewn  by  the  third  parable*  in  which  he 
infers,  from  the  nature  of  the  contrast,  that  such  phenomena  as 
were  seen  in  his  ministry,  could  be  explained  only  as  the  result  of 
an  absolute  preponderance  of  power.  The  kingdom  of  darkness,  as 
a  united  community,  is  here  contrasted  with  the  kingdom  of  light  ; 
both  the  kingdoms  being  viewed  hi  their  personal  representatives. 
But  though  the  contrast  is  viewed  as  a  real  one,  yet  it  by  no  means 
appears  as  an  absolute  one,  inasmuch  as  in  the  good  there  is  always 
the  power  of  conquering.  Luke  carries  out  the  figure  more  care- 
fully. The  evil  one  is  represented  as  an  armed  man  protecting  his 
castle  ;  (av^  stands  here  for  palace,  as  in  Matth.  xxvi.  3,'  a  large 
building  surrounded  with  courts  or  porches.)  A  mightier  only 
can  conquer  him,  deprive  him  of  his  armour  (mn>o7rAm),  and  divide 
the  spoil.  (2/a-Aa,  Matthew  and  Mark  have  aicevTj  =  d^3,  which 
frequently  signifies  "  armour,"  in  which  sense  it  may  form  a  parallel 
with  the  TravonXla.  As  the  contrast  to  er«£Aa,  which  are  distin- 
guished from  the  armour,  it  might  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  furni- 
ture, possessions  in  general.) 

Ver.  30.  —  After  these  discourses  of  Jesus  addressed  to  the  un- 
derstanding, his  language  assumes  another  character  —  that  of  stern- 
ness. To  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  —  who,  as  representatives  of  the 
theocracy,  ought  to  have  been  for  the  Kedeemer  and  his  cause,  if 
they  had  truly  acted  up  to  their  calling,  he  represents,  that,  in  their 
position,  mere  indecision  for  him,  was  decision  against  him.  (The 
two  parallel  members  contain  the  same  thought.  The  contrast 
of  ovvdyeiv,  collect,  and  aitopm&iv,  scatter,  is,  perhaps,  borrowed 
from  the  figure  of  collecting  treasures  of  any  kind.)  With  all  the 
sternness  expressed  in  this  discourse,  the  thought  still  breathes 
gentleness  ;  our  Kedeemer  does  not  regard  them  as  absolute  ene- 
mies, but  still  views  them  as  undecided  friends  ;  distinctly  point- 
ing out,  however,  at  the  same  time,  that  indecision  was  their  ruin. 
Should  it  be  said  that  this  language  may  perhaps  refer  to  other 
Pharisees  who  had  not  uttered  that  bold  accusation,  we  answer, 
that  there  is  no  indication  of  it  in  the  discourse,  and  that  Christ's 
former  mode  of  addressing  his  calumniators,  allows  also  in  the  pre- 
sent case  the  more  lenient  interpretation.  But  this  proverbial  say- 
ing forms  an  apparent  contradiction  to  the  similar  one  :  He  that  is 
not  against  you,  is  for  you  (Luke  ix.  50  ;  Mark  ix.  40.)  This  de- 
claration, however,  refers  to  persons  not  definitely  called  to  labour 
for  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  whom,  therefore,  the  absence  of  decision 
against  the  truth  may  be  as  certainly  considered  a  favourable  sign 
of  their  good  disposition,  as  the  indecision  of  the  Pharisees  was  to 


*  The  parable  is  based  upon  the  passage  Is.  xlix.  24,  25,  where  the  iSaa  corresponds 
to  the  laxvpog.  The  description  of  Luke  agrees  entirely  with  the  prophetic  discourse  ac- 
cording to  the  version  of  the  LX7T. 


MATTHEW  XII.  30-32.  453 

him  a  sign  of  their  evil  disposition.  It  is  here  quite  out  of  the 
question  to  refer  this  proverbial  saying  to  the  kindgdom  of  dark- 
ness, in  which  case  the  juer'  euov  and  /car'  euov  (with  me  and  against 
me),  could  be  applied  only  to  the  subject  suggested  by  the  context, 
while  the  first  person  would  be  used  only  proverbially,  so  that  this 
sense  would  arise :  "  the  common  remark,  he  who  is  not  with  me, 
etc.,  may  with  full  truth  be  applied  to  the  devil." 

Ver.  31,  32. — With  this  idea  is  then  connected  a  description  of 
the  fearful  guilt  into  which  all  plunge  themselves  who  were  against 
Jesus  (/car'  K^OV).  But  to  place  this  guilt  in  its  true  light,  our  Lord 
compares  it  with  other  very  culpable  actions — especially  with  blas- 
phemies. This  difficult  passage  requires  a  careful  consideration  on 
account  of  its  doctrinal  importance.* 

In  the  first  place,  as  regards  the  various  expressions  used  by  the 
Evangelists,  there  is,  in  Luke  xii.  10,  a  similar  thought,  but  more 
briefly  expressed.  It  stands  there  in  quite  a  different  connexion. 
A  comparison  of  it  with  others,  contributes  nothing  to  our  under- 
standing of  the  passage.  Mark  has  the  words  in  the  same  connexion 
as  Matthew,  but  more  briefly,  and  with  less  peculiarity.  It  is  in 
Matthew  alone  that  the  thought  appears  fully  brought  out ;  and 
he  proves  again  here  that  he  can  make  up,  by  care  in  communicating- 
the  discourses,  for  his  want  of  vividness  in  narrative.  If,  then,  we  fol- 
low Matthew,  the  substance  of  the  thought  is,  that  all  sins  may  be 
forgiven  with  the  exception  of  one,  which  Matthew  calls :  "speaking 
a  word  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit"  (elrrelv  Xoyw 
Kara  rov  Trvevp-arog  dyiov,  phaatyrj^ia  rov  7TV£viJ,aro(f).  Mark,  on  the 
contrary,  calls  it,  j3hcufyr)(j,EZv  elg  rb  nvevfia  TO  ayiov.  In  order  to  illus- 
trate the  idea,  it  is,  moreover,  added,  that  even  ftXaa^^iai  (accord- 
ing to  Mark),  and  speaking  against  the  Son  of  man  (el-new  Xoyov 
Kara  rov  vlov  rov  dv9pamov}  according  to  Matthew),  will  be  forgiven 
— but  not  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be 
said  that  ver.  31  and  32  express  the  same  truth ;  for  although  ver. 
31  contains  the  preliminary  remark,  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  cannot  be  forgiven,  yet  ver.  32  points  out  the  new  and  im- 
portant thought,  that  even  the  sin  against  the  Son  may  be  forgiven, 
but  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  can  not.  The  expressive 
remark,  moreover,  is  added  :  ovre  KV  TCWTW  TG>  at&vt,  ovre  ev  ra>  j^eA- 
Xovrij  neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  that  to  come.  This  simple 
thought,  however,  it  is  very  difficult  to  explain  ;  partly,  because  it 
stands  quite  isolated,  inasmuch  as  no  other  passage  of  the  New 
Testament  speaks  expressly  of  this  sin  ;  partly,  because  it  is  in  it- 

*  On  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  compare  the  instructive  treatises  by  Grashoff 
(Stud.  1833,  H.  4),  Gurlitt  (Stud.  1834,  H.  3),  Tholuck  (Stud.  1836,  H.  2.)  Yet,  from  the 
fear  of  too  great  digression,  I  have  been  only  very  rarely  able  to  take  notice  of  the  points 
therein  suggested. 


454  MATTHEW  XII.  31,  32. 

self  dark,  and  stands  in  connexion  with  other  difficult  doctrines, 
e.  g.,  with  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost.  Nor  can  diffi- 
culties such  as  these  be  removed  by  means  of  grammatical  and  phi- 
lological enquiries  ;  each  one  solves  them  in  accordance  with  his  own 
fundamental  views.  The  right  explanation  of  such  a  passage  neces- 
sarily involves  sympathy  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ ;  without  this  it 
will  be  inevitably  misunderstood.  After  a  comparison  of  Heb.  vi. 
4,  seq.  ;  x.  26,  seq. ;  1  John  v.  16,  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  dis- 
card all  such  views  as  would  limit  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
by  such  relations  of  place  and  time,  as  to  render  it  impossible  to  be 
either  previously  or  subsequently  committed.*  In  the  second  place, 
we  must  discard  such  explanations  as  weaken  the  moral  import  of 
the  words,  by  affixing  to  the  words,  "  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  cannot  be  forgiven"  (notwithstanding  the  addition,  "  neither 
in  this  world  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come")  the  meaning  :  that  it 
can  be  forgiven  with  greater  difficulty  than  other  sins.  Finally,  the 
Christian  expositor  must  likewise  discard  every  explanation  of  this 
remarkable  passage  which  understands,  by  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  an  act  detached  from  the  whole  moral  condition  of  the  in- 
dividual sinning  ;  it  must  always  be  considered  as  the  fruit  of  a 
previous  sinful  course  of  life.  As  the  first  two  modes  of  exposition 
destroy  the  profound  meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  and  connect  the 
most  important  moral  relations  with  special  localities  on  the  one 
hand,  and  indefinite  language  on  the  other ;  so  the  latter  view 
evidently  leads  into  errors  which  perplex  the  conscience,  inasmuch 
as  some  unfortunate  man,  in  an  unguarded  moment  of  his  life,  may 
easily  be  plunged  into  a  sin  which  somewhere,  and  at  some  time, 
has  been  explained  as  meaning  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  As 
regards,  now,  the  biblical  exposition  itself,  the  passages  already 
quoted  (Heb.  vi.  4,  seq.  x.  26  ;  1  John  v.  16)  lead  us  to  think  of  a 
fearful  progress  in  sin,  in  which  man  is  as  little  inclined  to  believe, 
as  in  that  advance  in  moral  goodness,  which  is  taught  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christian,  sanctification  (diKaioavvr/  rov  Qeov~).  For  although 
the  phrase  :  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  (^aa^pelv  e/f  TO 
Trvevpa  TO  aytov)  is  wanting  in  those  passages,  and  in  fact  the  matter  at 
issue  is  different,  the  question  being  there  of  the  loss  of  spiritual  life 
already  received,  here  of  the  refusal  to  receive  it  ;f  yet  the  compari- 

*  "Who  does  not  here  recall  to  mind  the  strange  definition  which  Reinhard  gives  of 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  Dogmatik,  S.  321:  Delictum  quorundam  Judse- 
orum  (!)  qui  summa  pertinacia  ducti,  rairacula  Jesu,  quorum  evidentiam  negare  non  poter- 
ant,  a  diabolo  proficisci  criminabantur.  "  The  crime  of  certain  Jews,  who,  in  their  per- 
verseness,  charged  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  which  they  could  not  deny,  proceeded  from  the 
devil"  This  exposition  is  so  much  the  more  unsuitable,  as  the  gospel  history  does  not  at 
all  tell  that  the  Pharisees  who  used  this  language  (Matth.  xii.  24)  had  committed  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost;  it  appeared  only  possible  that  they  might  commit  it;  and  it  is 
against  this  that  Jesus  warns  them. 

f  Lucke  remarks  on  1  John  v.  16  (S.  233)  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a 


MATTHEW  XII.  31,  32.  455 

son  of  such  parallel  passages  is  by  no  means  unimportant,  inasmuch 
as  we  recognize  from  them  the  severe  import  of  the  shall  not  be  for- 
given. As  a  parallel  in  another  point  of  view,  we  have  the  remarkable 
passage  in  Matth.  x.  41,  42  ;  for  as  in  that  passage,  already  ex- 
plained, a  progress  in  good  was  taught  with  its  accompanying  re- 
ward, so  here  is  a  parallel  progress  in  evil,  with  its  accompanying 
ruin.  The  several  steps,  however,  are  here  not  so  clearly  defined  as 
in  Matth.  x.  41,  42 ;  but  it  is  evident  from  a  closer  examination 
that  here,  three  degrees  of  sin  are  to  be  distinguished,  as  there, 
three  degrees  of  righteousness.  It  is  generally  acknowledged  that 
the  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit  or  the  speaking  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  the  lowest  stage  ;  but  in  what  the  speaking  against  the  Son  of 
Man  is  distinguished  from  it,  is  doubtful.  Some  understand  the 
Son  of  Man  =  man,  as  in  Mark  iii.  28,  "  all  sins  shall  be  forgiven  to 
the  sons  of  men."  (Tlol  r&v  dvdpu-nuv  in  this  case  =  triij  "os.)  But 
this  view  is  inadmissible,  for  this  simple  reason,  that  the  singular 
"  the  Son  of  Man"  (6  vlbg  rov  dvdpu-rrov)  with  the  article,  is  never 
used  as  a  general  designation  of  man  ;  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  the 
name  of  the  Messiah,  and  stands  parallel  with  the  Trvevpa  dyiov,  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  sin  against  the  Son  of  Man  is  pointed  out  by 
the  formula,  teal  b$  dv  (Mv  is  a  less  authorized  reading)  ei-rry  Aoyov, 
as  a  distinct  and  peculiar  crime.  After  it  had  been  remarked  in 
the  second  clause  of  ver.  31,  that  the  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit  ()3Aaa- 
</>77fua  rov  Trvevfiarof)  will  not  be  forgiven,  the  sin  against  the  Son  of 
Man  is  further  specially  mentioned,  with  the  remark,  that  even  it 
may  be  forgiven. — The  third  class  of  sins  is  more  obscurely  indicated, 
inasmuch  as  the  Father  is  not  expressly  mentioned  along  with  the 
Spirit  and  the  Son ;  but  the  reference  to  the  Father  is  necessarily  im- 
plied in  the  words,  All  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven 
to  men.  (Matth.  ver.  31.  Comp.  also  Mark  iii.  28.)  For  every  sin, 
but  especially  every  blasphemy,  has,  at  bottom,  a  reference  to  God.* 
Blasphemy  cannot  by  any  means  be  uttered  against  an  angel  or  a 

species  of  the  sin  unto  death  (ufj.apria  npbf  Ouvarov),  spoken  of  by  John  in  the  passage 
referred  to.  I  am  disposed  rather  to  place  them  in  an  inverted  relation ;  for  we  might 
also  say  the  sin  which  John  describes  is  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  difference 
between  the  two  expressions  seems  to  consist  only  in  this,  that  the  name,  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  points  to  the  object  to  which  the  sin  refers,  whilst  the  name,  sin  unto  death, 
places  in  the  foreground  the  consequence  of  the  sin  to  the  individual  who  commits  it. 
(Compare  Lehnerdt's  Treatise  on  1  John  v.  16.  Konigsberg,  1832.) 

*  It  is  only  apparently  that  this  is  contradicted  by  some  passages,  in  which,  as  in 
Acts  vi.  1 1,  (3Ado(j>T][ia  fir/para  Aa/leZf  is  applied  to  men ;  for  in  that  passage  Moses  is  view- 
ed as  a  divine  ambassador.  It  is  therefore  the  will  of  God  that  is  blasphemed  in  his  per- 
son ;  for  which  reason  the  words,  elg  Mwcriyv  /cat  rdv  Qeov  are  added  as  an  explanation. 
In  Rom.  xiv.  16,  TO  fijafidv  stands  for  that  which  is  divine,  as  2  Pet.  ii.  2,  oddf  rjjf 
dtydeiaf  for  the  ordinance  of  God.  Of  course  what  applies  to  Moses  applies  to  the  apos- 
tles also.  (Compare  Rom.  iii.  8;  1  Cor.  iv.  13;  x.  30).  This  with  reference  to  the  ro- 
marks  of  Grashoff,  loc.  cit.  S.  955,  seq. 


456  MATTHEW  XII.  31,  32. 

man.  There  appear,  then,  three  gradations  in  sinfulness.  Fiyst, 
sins  against  God  the  Father ;  then,  against  the  Son ;  and  finally, 
against  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  two  first  degrees  there  is  a  pos- 
sibility of  forgiveness  (on  the  supposition  of  repentance  and  faith); 
it  is  only  for  the  last  that  it  is  excluded.  This  gradation  is  the 
safest  guide  for  a  correct  explanation  of  the  passage.  As  we 
already  remarked,  when  commenting  on  Matth.  x.  41,  42,  the  value 
of  a  deed  must  be  determined  both  according  to  the  object  to  which 
it  refers  (so  that,  in  a  political  point  of  view,  it  is  not  a  matter  of 
indifference  whether  I  confer  a  benefit  on  a  king  or  on  a  peasant,  nor, 
in  a  spiritual  point  of  view,  whether  I  confer  it  on  a  prophet  or  on 
a  righteous  man),  and  to  the  degree  of  moral  development  of  the 
person  who  performs  it.  Precisely  so  with  the  growth  of  sin.  The 
internal  condition  of  the  agent,  and  the  relation  of  the  act  to  the 
object,  determine  the  degree  of  guilt.  The  Kedeemer  was  dealing 
here  with  persons  who  recognise  their  occupation  with  divine  things 
as  their  calling,  and  who  had  attained  a  certain  grade  of  spiritual 
culture  ;  the  higher  this  was  conceived  to  be,  the  more  perilous  was 
their  position,  if  notwithstanding,  they  gave  themselves  to  sin.  A 
child  is  incapable  of  committing  blasphemy,  because  it  has  no  know- 
ledge of  God ;  and  even  though  it  should  repeat  blasphemous  words, 
it  would  utter  only  words,  because  its  inward  sense  cannot  compre- 
hend their  meaning.  But  the  Pharisees,  who  knew  of  God,  but 
hardened  themselves  against  his  exhortations,  required  the  warning, 
that  man  can  become  so  completely  callous  to  divine  impressions, 
that  reconciliation  is  no  longer  possible.  Such  a  word,  uttered  in 
the  power  of  love,  might  yet  rouse  their  hearts  from  their  carnal 
security,  in  which  they  were  staggering  along  on  the  brink  of 
the  abyss.  But  the  Saviour  of  the  world  wishes  to  deprive  no  one 
of  the  comfort  of  forgiveness  ;  he  proclaims  it  to  all  sin  and  blas- 
phemy, on  the  supposition,  of  course,  of  true  repentance  and  gen- 
uine faith.  The  sins  (ajuaprmi),  as  distinguished  from  blasphemies 
(pXacHprjuiai),  are  sins  committed  against  man  or  any  other  creature; 
while  blasphemies  are  sins  against  the  Divine  Being  himself.  To 
commit  the  latter,  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  a  depravity 
prevailing  over  the  light  of  this  knowledge.*  Such  an  internal  state 
is  represented  as  yet  affording  hope  of  redemption ;  the  superior 
power  of  grace  may  yet  stir  up  the  hidden  susceptibility  of  good. 
But  if  the  higher  revelations  of  the  Divine  in  Christ  Jesus  be  per- 
severingly  rejected  ;  if,  while  heightened  religious  culture  opens  the 
mind  to  spiritual  influences,  there  be,  from  impurity  of  life,  a  shut- 
ting of  the  heart  against  the  light,  pardon  and  redemption  become 

*  Of  so-called  cursing  or  swearing,  and  thoughtless  abuse  of  the  name  of  God,  we 
cannot  here  think ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  done  thoughtlessly,  the  sin  consists  mainly  in  the 
very  thoughtlessness  which  can  effect  such  guilt. 


MATTHEW  XII.  31,  32.  457 

impossible,  inasmuch  as  the  susceptibility  to  holy  impulses  be- 
comes utterly  extinct.  Thus  the  successive  stages  of  sin  appear 
dependent  on  the  degree  of  religious  culture,  and  the  deeper  know- 
ledge of  things  thereby  rendered  possible.  He  who  has  only  a  gen- 
eral knowledge  of  God,  can  sin  only  against  God  the  Father.  He 
who  is  more  advanced,  and  able  to  recognise  the  Son  of  Man,  is  in  a 
position  also  to  reject  the  deeper  and  more  spiritual  revelations  of 
Divinity  manifested  in  him ;  but  he  who  has  experienced  in  his  heart 
the  workings  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  be  guilty  of  sin  and  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost.*  Hence  a  high  degree  of  the  knowledge 
of  God  is  not  a  guarantee  against  sin ;  on  the  contrary,  the  greatest 
sin  presupposes  the  greatest  knowledge  ;f  it  is  only  purity,  sincerity, 
and  humility  of  heart  which,  in  every  degree  of  development,  afford 
such  security.  But  inasmuch  as  this  very  disposition  was  wanting 
in  the  Pharisees,  they  were  on  the  way  toward  the  commission  of 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Without  entering,  at  present,  into  a  minute  discussion  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  let  us  simply  conceive  of  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit,  as  gradations  in  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  Being.  The 
knowledge  of  God  as  the  Father  has  reference  to  the  power  and 
wisdom  ;  that  of  the  Son,  to  the  love  and  mercy ;  that  of  the 
Spirit,  to  the  holiness  and  perfection  of  the  one  Divine  Being.  He 
who  according  to  his  progress  in  spiritual  knowledge  is  able  to  re- 
cognise the  holiness  and  perfection  of  the  Divinity  (and  that  not 
merely  in  imagination,  but  in  reality),  and  who,  nevertheless, 
shuts  his  heart  to  their  influences,  nay,  calls  even  holiness  unholiness 
— proves  that  his  inward  eye  is  darkness.  Accordingly,  the  speak- 
ing against  the  Son  of  Man  must  not  be  understood  merely  of  speak- 
ing against  the  Messiah's  unpretending  humanity  ;$  it  must  be  dis- 
tinctly pointed  out,  that  he  who  so  sinned,  felt  the  impression  of  the 
divinity  which  shone  forth  in  Christ,  and  yet  allowed  no  room  for 

*  The  resisting  the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  vii.  51),  the  grieving  of  the  same  (Eph.  iv.  30), 
even  the  embittering  and  provoking  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Isa.  Ixiii.  10),  are  still  to  be  care- 
fully distinguished  from  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  really  the  un- 
pardonable sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  GRASHOFP  (loc.  cit.  S.  947)  considers  the 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  species  of  the  genus  Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost— 
a  view,  however,  which  does  not  seem  to  be  countenanced  by  our  text. 

f  The  Reformed  theologians  taught  rightly  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
committed  by  unregenerate  persons,  and  consists  in  fact  in  the  rejection  of  conver- 
ting grace,  but  denied  incorrectly  that  along  with  this  there  is  with  the  regenerate  the 
Bin  of  apostacy  (Heb.  vi.)  The  Lutherans  maintained  rightly  the  possibility  of  apostaoy, 
but  incorrectly  confounded  this  with  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. — [E. 

\  This  view  would  be,  on  the  whole,  similar  to  the  one  referred  to  above,  according 
to  which  6  vide  T°v  uvdpunov  is  =  uvdpunoc.  For  whosoever  really  saw  in  Christ  only 
what  is  human,  because  he  possessed  no  deeper  susceptibility  for  the  Divine,  sinned  no 
more  in  cursing  Christ  than  he  would  by  doing  so  to  any  other  man.  It  is  the  inward 
intention,  of  which,  it  is  true,  God  alone  is  the  judge,  by  which  the  deed  must  be 
measured. 


458  MATTHEW  XII.  31,  32. 

this  impression.  He  who  opposes  himself  to  the  melting  power  of 
such  a  revelation,  sins  heinously  ;  yet  by  perfect  holiness,  and  its 
fear-inspiring  impression,  the  hardening  produced  thereby  may  yet 
be  overcome ;  but  where  this  also  is  rejected,  there  is  spiritual  death. 
We  wholly  lose  the  point  of  view  necessary  to  a  right  understanding 
of  the  passage,  hi  understanding  the  Holy  Spirit  (rrvevna  ayiov)  only 
of  the  general  power  of  God  manifested  in  miracles.*  It  is  incon- 
ceivable how,  in  the  non-recognition  of  such  a  power,  creating 
merely  an  impression  of  might,  an  unpardonable  sin  should  be  com- 
mitted ;  and  the  more,  as  evil  miracles  also  have  been  performed  by 
satanic  agency,  and  these  so  deceptive,  that  they  would  have  de- 
ceived, were  it  possible,  even  the  elect  (Matth.  xxiv.  24).  Nay,  it 
is  here  that  forgiveness  seems  to  find  its  appropriate  sphere.  The 
Trvevpa  &JLOV  in  our  passage  is  the  highest  revelation  of  God,  as  the 
absolutely  Holy  and  Perfect  One.  In  so  far,  then,  as  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus,  the  Godhead  dwelt,  and  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are 
inseparably  united,  the  depravity  of  men,  might,  according  to  their 
degree  of  culture,  in  sinning  against  him,  sin  against  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit,  according  as  they  perseveringly  resisted  the  effect  of 
divine  power,  love,  and  holiness  which  proceed  from  him.  On  the 
other  hand,  purity  of  heart,  coupled  with  an  equal  advance  in  know- 
ledge, might,  through  him,  receive  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  But 
where  the  mind  was  wholly  blind  to  that  higher  revelation  of  the 
Divine  in  humanity,  which  appeared  in  Christ  Jesus,  there  could 
one  still  believe  that  he  saw  in  Jesus  a  prophet  or  a  righteous  man 
of  the  former  dispensation,  and  receive  from  him  the  blessing  which 
was  adapted  to  his  grade  of  culture.  Thus  our  Redeemer  became 
all  things  to  all  men  ;  to  the  pure  in  heart,  a  dispenser  of  blessings 
for  every  grade  of  their  development ;  to  the  impure  a  reproving 
Judge,  first,  to  lead  them  to  repentance ;  and  then  to  judgment, 
when  their  obduracy  had  closed  the  way  to  repentance  (Luke  ii.  34). 
It  is  manifest,  then,  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  can  be 
also  committed  now  ;  for  since  the  Divinity  in  Christ  manifests  it- 
self continually  in  the  church,  sin,  in  individual  men,  even  where 
there  is  the  highest  degree  of  knowledge,  may  oppose  itself  to  his 
beneficent  influence.  Otherwise  either  the  period  to  which  the  possible 
commission  of  this  sin  was  confined,  seems  left  in  obscurity,  or  our 
Lord  deals  with  it  with  an  extraordinary  severity.  But  if,  as  fre- 
quently happens  with  persons  who  are  touched  by  the  power  of 
grace,  earnest  repentance  is  accompanied  with  the  idea  that  they 
may  have  committed  the  sin  againt  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  be  thereby 
excluded  from  forgiveness — a  thought  which  on  sensitive  spirits  may 

\  Hvevfia  uyiov  has  always  a  reference  to  what  is  moral.  The  notion  of  mere  power 
occupies  a  subordinate  place  in  it.  But  -rrvevfia  by  itself  signifies,  for  instance  in  Matth. 
arii.  28,  power  only  with  reference  to  its  higher  origin. 


MATTHEW  XII.  31,  32.  459 

work  most  perniciously,  and  at  least  exclude  them  for  a  time  from 
the  consolations  of  the  word  of  grace — he  who  is  entrusted  with 
the  care  of  souls,  or  is  called  on  for  advice,  may  with  full  confidence, 
invite  all  such  to  cry  in  faith  for  mercy.  For  whoever  vexes  him- 
self with  the  thought  that  he  may  have  committed  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  proves,  by  his  very  grief  and  self-accusation,  that 
he  has  not  committed  it ;  he  who  has  really  committed  it  will  de- 
fend himself  against  all  reproach.  Nay,  even  though  sin  should 
have  developed  itself  in  any  soul  in  a  very  alarming  form,  so  that, 
as  in  the  case  of  Judas  Iscariot,  the  grief  of  repentance  should 
threaten  to  degenerate  into  despair,  even  in  such  a  case,  the 
exhortation  to  believe  in  pardoning  love  is  still  admissible,  inasmuch 
as  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  unpardonable,  not  because  God 
is  unwilling  to  forgive;  but  because  man  has  become  unable  to  be- 
lieve that  God  can  forgive.  If,  then,  the  proclamation  of  grace 
takes  hold  of  the  heart,  it  is  actually  proved  that  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  been  committed. 

The  passage  under  consideration  is,  in  dogmatic  theology,  also 
referred  to  as  a  leading  proof-text  for  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of 
punishment.  All  other  passages  which  treat  of  an  aluvtos  Kpimg, 
eternal  condemnation,  are  less  definite  than  this,  in  which  ev  ro5 
al&vt  jue/Uovrf }  in  the  future  world,  is  expressly  added.  It  is  true  that 
the  term  ala>v,  al6vto^,  age,  eternal  (in  the  phrases  :  elg  rbv  altiva, 
atuviog  Kpiaig  in  Mark),  as  also  the  phrase  :  aluv  ovrog  and  /^eAAwv 
(in  Matthew)  have  a  vague  sense,  capable  of  various  interpretations. 
The  Bible  knows  no  metaphysical  expressions,  and  hence,  has  not 
one  for  eternity  in  the  sense  of  timelessness  (Zeitlosigkeit),  absence 
of  time.  All  the  biblical  expressions  for  this  idea  denote  long 
periods  connected  with  one  another.  The  phrase  :  elg  rbv  al&va, 
for  ever,  is  quite  parallel  with  the  otuer  phrases  :  elg  roi)g  al&va$,  d<; 
rove;  ai&vag  r&v  atwvwv(Gal.  i.  5),  which  denote  the  ceternitas  a  parte 
post  or  the  future,  conceived  as  an  indefinitely  extended  period  ;  but 
the  phrase  :  drf  al&vog,  from  everlasting,  is  =  dnb  roiv  aluvuv,  rrpb 
rtiv  al&vwv,  by  which  the  ceternitas  a  parte  ante,  or  the  past,  is  con- 
ceived as  an  indefinitely  extended  period.  A/wv  is  therefore  like 
DVte  =  altiveg,  tjiteV^  as  is  proved  by  the  formula  ovvrEfaia  rov 
al&vog,  which  is  identical  with  owreteia  -r&v  aluvwv.  Comp.  1  Cor. 
x.  11,  the  expression  :  ra  re^rj  r&v  aluvuv.)  But  as  the  same  'ex- 
pressions are  applied  to  the  eternity  of  God,  as  well  as  to  a  long  en- 
during period,  according  to  the  conception  of  the  creature  ;  as  the 
terms  :  Kpiaig,  Kokaaig  aluviog,  eternal  punishment,  tcpi^a,  Trvp  al&viov} 
eternal  fire,  form  the  contrast  to  £«?/  aluwog,  eternal  life  ;  no  objec- 
tions can  be  raised  against  the  eternity  of  punishment  from  philolo- 
gical grounds.  But  the  feeling  against  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity 
of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  which  shews  itself  among  the  de- 


460  MATTHEW  XII.  81,  32. 

fenders  of  a  restoration  of  all  things  (dTroKardoTooig  r&v  -ndvrwv) — and 
they  have  been  found  at  all  times,  and  are,  at  the  present  time, 
more  than  at  any  former  period,  though  it  may  often  have  its  founda- 
tion in  a  vitiated  moral  state,  yet  has  no  doubt  a  deep  root  in  noble 
minds — is  the  expression  of  a  heartfelt  desire  for  a  perfect  har- 
mony in  the  creation.  But,  viewing  it  from  a  merely  exegetical 
point  of  view,  we  must  confess  that  no  passage  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment affords  a  clear  and  positive  testimony  for  the  fulfilment  of  this 
longing.  The  scriptural  terms  used  to  denote  the  resolving  of  the 
discord  arising  from  sin  into  a  harmony — afaoig,  /caraAAay?;,  dnoXv- 
rpuoig,  remission,  reconciliation,  ransom — all  denote  a  being  fettered 
by  the  evil ;  hence  a  mixture  of  good  and  evil  is  found  in  human 
nature  after  the  fall.  Hence,  the  terms  above  mentioned  can,  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  never  be  applied  to  the  spirits 
of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  nor  to  men  who,  by  persevering  and 
continued  resistance  to  the  drawings  of  grace,  have  become 
the  subjects  of  that  kingdom.  Should  it  be  urged  that  evil,  as 
a  thing  created  and  temporary,  must  share  also  the  general  des- 
tiny of  what  is  temporary,  viz.,  cessation  and  annihilation,  and  that 
the  ages  (altive<; )  of  the  course  of  this  world,  though  they  may  bring 
lasting  punishment  to  the  wicked,  must  yet  at  last  themselves  come 
to  an  end  ;  there  is  indeed  a  text  of  Scripture  pointing  to  this  pass- 
ing away  of  time  itself  with  all  temporary  phenomena,  into  the 
abyss  of  eternity  when  time  shall  be  no  longer,  viz.,  the  mysterious 
words  in  1  Cor.  xv.  28  (on  which  compare  the  commentary).  But 
the  mysterious  character  of  the  passage  itself,  along  with  the  circum- 
stance that  no  mention  is  made  in  it  of  evil  and  its  dissolution, 
authorises  scarcely  more  than  conjectural  inferences  regarding  the 
eternity  of  punishment ;  the  words  of  our  Redeemer,  in  Matth.  xii. 
32,  remain  as  an  awful  testimony  to  the  fearful  character  of  sin,  and 
its  consequences.*  But  along  with  this  they  are  also  a  consolation, 
in  that  even  they  promise  the  possibility  of  forgiveness  of  sins  com- 
tnitted  against  the  Father  and  Son,  hence  of  sins  of  a  very  heinous 
character.  For  the  addition  :  ovre  iv  TU>  jueAAovrt  al&vi,  nor  in  the 
world  to  come,  is  certainly  not  overstrained,  if  we  infer  that  all  other 
sins  can  be  forgiven  in  the  world  to  come,  always  supposing,  of 
course,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  repentance  and  faith.  (Comp. 

*  If  we  were  to  interpret  our  passage  from  1  Cor.  xv.  28,  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
make  it  affirm  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  will  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this  aluv, 
nor  in  the  aluv  to  come,  but  that  after  that  aluv,  age  or  world,  forgiveness  might  be  ob- 
tained, this  would  evidently  contradict  the  meaning  of  the  writer.  For  in  Matth.  xii.  32, 
the  "  shall  not  be  forgiven"  is,  in  a  decided  manner,  contrasted  with  the  "  shall  be  for- 
given:" the  addition,  OVK  iv  Tovry  rw  altivi,  ovre  Iv  TGJ  fteA^ovn,  not  in  this  tvorld,  nor  in 
that  to  come,  is  only  employed  completely  to  exhaust  the  not;  hence  to  strengthen,  not  to 
weaken  it.  Matthew  by  no  means  imagines  that,  subsequently  to  the  aluv  [i&Xuv,  there 
is  still  to  come  another  period  of  the  world's  existence ;  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  completed 
in  the  aiuv  OVTOS  and  /4eA/luv. 


MATTHEW  XII.  81,  32.  461 

rem.  on  1  Peter  iii.  18,  seq.)  This  is  also  indicated  by  such  passages 
as  Matth.  v.  26,  compared  with  xviii.  34,  for  the  being  cast  into  prison 
till  one  shall  have  paid  the  uttermost  farthing,  is  evidently  very  differ- 
ent from  tcpimg  al6vio$,  eternal  punishment.  (Comp.  the  remarks  on 
Matth.  xviii.  34  ;  Luke  xvi.  19,  seq.)  But  that  the  doctrine  of  the  for- 
giveness of  some  sins  in  the  al&v  j«e/U,wv,  world  to  come,  is  not  in  con- 
tradiction with  the  doctrine  of  the  judgment,  is  shewn  by  the  follow- 
ing exposition  of  the  relation  of  aluv  ovrog  to  the  aluv  /ieAAwv.  For 
the  former  expression,  the  New  Testament  uses  also  6  vvv  attiv  (Tit. 
ii.  12  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  10),  K<upb$  ovrog  (Mark  x.  30),  al&v  rov  tcoouov  rov- 
rov  (Ephes.  ii.  2),  al&v  Iveorug  novypog  (Gal.  i.  4).  Instead  of  a/wv 
jueA/lwv  we  find  also  the  expressions  :  aluv  6  ^djuevof  (Mark  x.  30), 
aiuv  inelvos  (Luke  XX.  35),  al&ves  irrep%6^ievot  (Ephes.  ii.  7).  The 
phrase  :  Koopog  jtieAAwv  does  not  occur.  The  old  controversy  about 
the  relation  of  the  Eabbinical  terms  n$n  uVto  and  KB^,  which  was 
carried  on  with  so  much  vehemence  between  Witsius  and  Khenferd 
(comp.  Koppe's  Exc.  i.  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians),  as  to 
whether  the  Messianic  period  or  eternity  is  to  be  understood  by 
al&v  jueAAwv,  is  somewhat  barren,  and  does  not  touch  the  substance 
of  the  contrast  ;  the  alwv  jtisAAwv,  coming  age,  comprehends  indeed 
both  (just  as  the  flamXeta  rov  Qeov,  comp.  remarks  on  Matth  iii.  2), 
the  phrase,  however,  having  a  preponderating  reference  now  to  the 
one,  now  to  the  other  relation.  In  general,  the  aluv  jiieAAwv  forms 
the  contrast  to  the  whole  temporary  order  of  things,  the  peculiarity 
of  which  is,  that  in  it  good  and  evil  are  mixed  together.  In  so  far 
it  stands  intermediate  between  the  kingdom  of  light  and  that  of 
darkness,  and  forms  the  contrast  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  For, 
although  the  good  has  assuredly  its  root  in  the  temporary  order  of 
things,  yet  the  evil  apparently  prevails,  on  which  account,  Gal.  i.  4, 
the  present  age  or  world  (al&v  Iveorug)  is  even  termed  novr]p6g}  evil, 
(3aot\eia  rov  dp^ovrog  rov  aieorovg,  the  kingdom  of  the  prince  of  dark- 
ness. With  this  temporary  order  of  things  is  contrasted  the  fu- 
ture one,  which  terminates  the  blending  of  good  and  evil,  and  estab- 
lishes in  its  purity  the  dominion  of  the  former.  The  term  :  al&v 
jweAAwv,  with  its  synonyms,  is  therefore  related  to  the  fiaotteia  rov 
Qeov ;  it  only  views  the  same  phenomenon  from  a  different  point, 
and  is  somewhat  differently  used.  It  is  not  applied  to  individuals, 
as  is  the  j3aaiXela  rov  QKOV  (comp.  remarks  on  Matth.  iii.  2)  ;  it  is 
nowhere  said  :  the  aluv  jueAAwv  exists  for  some  one,  or  in  some  one. 
It  has  reference  always  to  the  collective  body  of  the  church,  or  of 
mankind.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  usus  loquendi  is  in  so  far 
the  same,  that  the  expression  atov  \i£Xkuv,  as  well  as  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  used  in  a  twofold  sense  as  to  its  manifestation  :  some- 
times it  appears  as  having  already  come  and  taken  effect ;  at  others, 
as  still  future.  Instances  in  which  the  aluv  j^eAAwv  appears  as  al- 


462  MATTHEW  XII.  31-33. 

ready'  existing,  are  1  Cor.  x.  11  ;  Heb.  vi.  5,  ix.  26,  in  which  the 
avvrekeia  rtiv  aluvuv  (==  TK^TJ  r&v  aluvuv)  as  the  transition  from  the 
altbv  ovrog  to  the  jwtvUwv,  is  conceived  as  being  present.  This  must 
be  accounted  for  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  ftaai^eia  rov  6e<ri>,  re- 
garding which,  the  same  usus  loquendi  prevails.  As,  with  the  per- 
son of  Christ,  and  the  foundation  of  the  church,  the  kingdom  of 
God  was  present  in  its  germ,  so  in  this  slumbered  the  world  to  come 
as  now  present ;  just  as,  according  to  John,  eternal  life  exists  for 
the  believer,  not  only  as  future,  but  as  already  present  to  him. 
(Compare  the  remarks  on  1  John  iii.  14.)  Generally,  however,  the 
aluv  jueA/lwv  is  viewed  as  being  yet  future,  and,  accordingly,  its  ap- 
pearance takes  place  with  the  avvreheia  rov  al&vo<;  (TOVTOV),  when 
the  Divine  will  be  manifested  as  the  ruling  and  conquering  power, 
and  sin,  as  cast  out.  This  period  the  apostles  conceived  of  as  very 
near  at  hand,  and,  moreover,  they  did  not  distinguish  in  their  con- 
ception its  separate  and  individual  features — especially  not  the  first 
and  the  second  resurrection — any  more  than  those  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  (Paoikeia  rov  Qeov.)  The  analogy  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets,  who,  in  their  prophecies  concerning  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah,  were  not  accustomed  to  distinguish  between  his  twofold 
coming,  may  explain  this  phenomenon.  (Comp.  further  at  Matth. 
xxiv.  1.)  If  then,  in  our  passage,  a  remission  is  thought  possible  in 
the  world  to  come,  that  signification  of  the  term  predominates, 
which  excludes  eternity,  and  the  preceding  general  judgment.  The 
a/wv  jUfcAAwv  is  here  viewed  as  the  world  to  come,  which,  at  some  fu- 
ture period,  shall  reveal  itself  in  the  victory  of  good  here  on  earth, 
and  sinners  in  the  Sheol  are  assumed  as  belonging  thereto.  The 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the  unbelieving  contemporaries  of  Noah 
(1  Pet.  iii.  18),  involves  such  a  forgiveness  in  the  aluv  jueA/Uov,  for 
all  who  are  disposed  to  believe  in  it. 

Ver.  33. — That  which  follows  seems  to  countenance  the  opinion 
that  the  Pharisees  to  whom  Christ  was  speaking,  had,  by  their  very 
speech  (ver.  24),  committed  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
words  in  Mark  iii.  30  :  "  because  they  said,  he  hath  an  unclean  spi- 
rit," seem  likewise  to  favour  this  view  ;  since,  by  these  words,  the 
discourse  on  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  connected  with  the 
preceding  blasphemous  speech  of  the  Pharisees.  But,  as  already 
stated,  the  preceding  discourses  of  Jesus  (ver.  25,  seq.),  especially 
when  compared  with  1  Cor.  ii.  8  ;  Acts  xiii.  27,  28  ;  Luke  xxiii.  34, 
render  this,  in  my  opinion,  very  improbable.  For,  even  admitting, 
as  we  may  well  do,  that  the  dpxovre$,  rulers,  mentioned  there,  are 
different  from  those  spoken  of  in  our  passage,  yet,  as  they  even  cru- 
cified the  Lord  of  glory,  they  can  surely  have  been  hardly  less  guilty 
than  those  who  denied  the  divinity  of  his  miracles.  It  is,  however, 
mentioned  that  they  crucified  him  from  ignorance  (dyvoia),  and  how 


MATTHEW  XII.  33-35.  463 

much  soever  their  ignorance  may  have  been  the  consequence  of  their 
sin  and  guilt,  yet  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  can  be  committed 
only  where  there  is  knowledge  and  consciousness,  since  it  must  be 
conceived  of  as  the  highest  development  of  sinfulness.  The  words 
in  Mark  iii.  30,  retain  indeed  their  full  import,  if  the  discourse  on 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  be  referred  to  the  probable  final 
issue  of  the  sin  of  those  Pharisees.  For  if  any  man,  who  has  at- 
tained to  that  degree  of  knowledge  which  the  Pharisees,  as  the 
heads  and  teachers  of  the  people,  possessed,  could  say  of  the  mira- 
cles of  the  Son  of  God,  who  displayed  before  them  all  his  glory, 
that  they  were  wrought  by  the  evil  spirit — that  man  is  certainly  on 
the  direct  way  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  although  he  may 
not  yet  have  made  sufficient  progress  to  be  able  to  commit  the  sin 
itself. 

Ver.  34,  35. — Our  Saviour  contrasts  good  and  evil  with  each 
other,  as  they  are  contrasted  in  the  phenomena  of  nature  : — the  good 
tree  bringeth  forth  good  fruit ;  the  corrupt  tree  evil  fruit.  (Comp. 
remarks  on  Matth.  vii.  18,  seq.  The  -noielv  [ver.  33]  in  a  sense  ana- 
logous to  the  Latin facere, ponere,  "to set,"  or  "plant  a  tree,"  etc.) 
Comp..  here  the  kindred  passage,  Luke  vi.  43-45.  For  there,  pre- 
cisely as  here,  Luke  compares  the  inward  productive  power  of  man 
(&r)oavp6<;,  ver.  45)  with  the  creative  power  of  the  tree,  and  adds : 
that  as  the  fruit  of  a  tree  indicates  its  character,  and  we  may  infer 
from  the  one  the  nature  of  the  other,  so  with  man  ;  wherever  the 
root  of  the  spiritual  life  is  poisoned,  there  evil  deeds  will  spring 
forth.  (Luke  adds,  very  suitably,  in  ver.  45,  -drjaavpbg  r^g  napdiag, 
treasure  of  the  heart  ;  the  heart  (icapdia)  is  here  again  conceived  as 
the  centre  of  the  soul  tyvxi'i) — hence,  of  all  personal  life  and  self- 
determination.)  It  is  clear  then,  that  from  the  general  principle, 
the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit,  our  Lord  infers  that  the  Pharisees  are 
evil,  and  hence  unable  in  this  their  condition,  to  do  any  thing  which 
is  good.  He  calls  them  :  yein^/mra  i%idvG)v,  race  of  vipers  (see 
comment,  on  Matth.  iii.  7),  and  pointed  from  the  wicked  speech 
which  they  uttered,  to  the  inward  source  from  which  it  flowed. 
(All  external  things  are  expressions  of  the  internal : — oTopa,  mouth, 
the  counterpart  of  tcapdia,  heart: — abundance  (Trepiaaevna)  =  treasure 
(i^fravpof),  the  fulness  of  the  inner  life  which,  even  in  the  feeblest, 
manifests  itself  in  some  form  of  outward  action).  The  whole  pas- 
sage, however,  apart  from  its  connexion  with  what  precedes,  has  no 
inconsiderable  difficulties.  For  the  comparison  seems  to  place 
moral  existence  on  a  par  with  physical,  and  to  establish  among 
men,  a  necessary  diversity  of  character,  necessitating  a  corresponding 
diversity  of  outward  conduct.  As  then  the  Pharisees  are  here  called 
evil,  it  would  seem  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  was  to  be 
ascribed  to  them  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  wickedness  of 


464  MATTHEW  XII.  35-37. 

their  hearts — a  view  which  would  overthrow  our  previously  ex- 
pressed opinion.  This  doctrine,  however,  that  there  exists  a  neces- 
sary difference  betwixt  the  good  and  the  evil,  would  be  in  imme- 
diate opposition  to  the  whole  teaching  of  the  Bible.  As  we  can 
conceive  of  none  among  our  fallen  race  who,  from  his  good  treasure 
produces  by  inward  necessity  only  what  is  good,  so  also  of  none  who, 
in  like  manner,  produces  only  what  is  evil.  In  all  fallen  men,  good 
and  evil  appear  mixed  together.  The  true  solution  of  the  difficulty 
is  doubtless  this  :  The  point  of  comparison  is  not  the  natural  neces- 
sity of  the  result,  but  the  mutual  correspondence  of  the  nature  and 
the  fruit.  Man  cannot  act  in  contradiction  to  the  inward  elements 
of  his  being.  If  these  are  worldly,  all  his  acts  are  worldly  ;  if  these 
are  transformed  by  a  heavenly  birth,  his  acts  are  pure  and  virtuous. 
The  viperous  race  which,  as  such,  cannot  do  any  thing  which  is  good 
(•rraif  dvvaode  in  ver.  34  must  be  understood  in  its  proper  sense  of  an 
ethico-physical  inability  for  that  which  is  good)  may,  by  grace, 
cease  to  be  what  they  are,  and  may  by  repentance  and  faith,  change 
their  nature.  Thus  even  the  Baptist  preached  (Matth.  iii.  7,  8)  ; 
"  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath 
to  come  ?"• — i.  e.,  while  maintaining  your  present  character — Tor  the 
old  man  must  die — "  bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits,"  etc.  And  thus 
also  does  Christ  preach  here.  And  just  because  he  preaches  repent- 
ance to  the  viperous  race,  they  cannot  as  yet  have  committed  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  since,  in  that  case,  to  proclaim  repent- 
ance to  them  would  have  been  mockery.  The  corrupt  tree,  then, 
which  in  its  natural  state  bears  bitter  fruit,  must  be  ennobled  by  a 
noble  graft ;  and  so  must  the  natural  man  be  renewed  by  regenera- 
tion, into  the  image  of  him  whose  heart  overflows  with  grace  and 
salvation. 

Ver.  36,  37. — The  efforts  of  our  Kedeemer  to  rescue  the  Phari- 
sees who  were  plunging  into  the  abyss  of  sin,  are  plainly  pointed 
out  in  the  subsequent  verses,  in  which  he  places  before  their  eyes 
the  significance  of  sin  in  its  spiritual  aspect.  Eecognising  only  the 
deed  as  real  guilt,  they  may  have  considered  their  sin  as  a  very 
trifling  one,  inasmuch  as  they  had  only  spoken.  Jesus  now  leads  to 
a  higher  and  more  spiritual  view,  which  makes  the  spirit  and  inten- 
tion, though  disclosed  only  in  words,  the  object  of  divine  judgment. 
The  idle  word,  pijpa  dpyov  (it  must  be  taken  as  Nomin.  absol.),  is 
purposely  chosen  hi  contradistinction  to  the  wicked  word  (pT/jua 
novTjpov)  which  they  had  spoken  ;  dpyov  =  depyov,  dxprjorov  denotes 
a  slighter  culpability,*  and  hence  gives  emphasis  to  the  thought. 
The  "  rendering  an  account"  (Aoyov  dTrodiSavai)  indicates  immediate- 
ly, only  that,  in  the  eye  of  God,  even  the  most  secret  emotions  of 

*  Chrysostom  has  already  remarked  this.    He  understands  by  fir/pa  dpyov  not  only 
wicked,  but  also  useless  words,  TO  paTcuov,  rd  yiT^ura  KIVOVV  UTOKTOV. 


MATTHEW  XII.  36-38.  465 

evil  find  their  punishment.  And  the  deeper  the  significance  of 
speech,  the  more  culpable  its  abuse  ;  nay,  in  speech,  as  the  expres- 
sion of  the  soul,  is  man's  entire  character  revealed.  With  words 
are  contrasted  deeds.  The  latter  appear  to  sensuous  man  of  greater 
importance  because  they  are  more  obvious  to  sense.  But  every  deed 
is,  at  bottom,  only  an  embodied  word,  and  every  word  may  give  birth 
to  a  deed.  In  this  spiritual  character  the  word  is  here  considered 
by  the  Redeemer,  and  is,  therefore,  made  the  object  of  judgment. 
As  man  speaks,  so  he  is  ;  as  he  is,  so  he  is  judged.  The  Aoyo*  are 
thus  not  merely  external,  but  more  especially  internal  words,  the 
movements  of  the  internal  and  moral  life.  He,  therefore,  who  hy- 
pocritically speaks  good  words  shall  also  be  judged  according  to  his 
words,  because  they  are  hypocritical.  (AiKaiovodai  is  the  reverse  of 
KdTidiKd&adai,  hence  pro  justo  declarari,  but  with  the  supposition 
of  being  just  and  righteous  [see  remarks  on  Rom.  iii.  21].  The 
words  IK  r&v  Aoywv  indicate  the  influence  of  the  Aoyot  on  the 


Ver.  38.  —  In  Matthew,  this  section  is  immediately  followed  by  a 
rebuke  addressed  to  certain  Pharisees  who  wished  to  see  a  sign. 
Luke  reports  the  elements  of  this  discourse  in  a  different  order  in- 
deed, but  with  a  literal  agreement.  The  connexion  in  Matthew  is 
simple  and  plain  ;  so  that  the  position  of  the  words  here  is  unobjec- 
tionable ;  yet  as  Luke's  whole  account  bears  stronger  marks  of  ori- 
ginality, we  shall  here  also  give  him  the  preference.  But  whether 
the  "  certain  ones"  who  ask  the  sign  in  this  place,  be  or  be  not  identi- 
cal with  the  Pharisees  who,  ver.  24,  spoke  the  blasphemous  words 
(concerning  whom  Luke,  xi.  15,  likewise  said,  nvlq  i%  avr&v),  is  of 
little  importance  to  the  exposition.  The  expressions  employed  by 
our  Lord  to  repel  them  (ver.  39).  shew  that  they  occupied  the  same 
moral  position  as  the  others.  Yet,  by  Luke  xi.  16,  where  then- 
request  of  a  sign  appears  to  be  anticipated,  the  supposition  is 
rendered  very  probable,  that  one  party  expressed  themselves  in 
this  way  in  order  to  put  Christ  to  the  test,  and  the  others,  in 
another  (Luke  xi.  16,  Zrepoi  dt-  rrei^d^ovreg  arj^elov  Trap1  avrov  itftraw 
i%  ovpavov).  The  sign  appears  at  the  same  time  more  distinctly 
defined  as  one  from  heaven. 

A  arjfi&ov,  sign  (H'IN)  ;  is  a  miracle,  not  in  itself,  but  in  its  relation 
to  something  else,  in  so  far  as  it  proves,  signifies,  indicates  some- 
thing ;  as  in  the  case  before  us,  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  (Comp. 
Comment,  on  Matth.  iv.  12.)  Apart  from  every  thing  miraculous  — 
as  a  mere  testimony  for  the  disposition  of  the  heart  (as  Dr.  Paulus 
would  have  us  to  understand  it),  the  word  is  never  used  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  orj^ela  i%  ovpavov,  signs  from  heaven,  (or  dnb  rov 
ovpavov  according  to  Mark  viii.  11,  or  even  iv  TW  wpavw,  Rev.  xii.  1) 

are  contrasted  with  the  orj^ela  frit  rffc  yr}$,  signs  on  the  earth,  and  seem 
VOL.  I.—  30 


466  MATTHEW  XII.  38-40. 

to  carnal  man  to  be  required  of  the  Messiah,  since  they  imply  greater 
power. 

Ver.  39. — Jesus  dismissed  them  and  their  demand  with  a  re- 
buke. (Teved  =  nii  means  primarily  "  age/'  "  period  of  life  ;"*  then, 
those  living  together  at  the  same  period.  [Comp.  remarks  on  Matth. 
xxiv.  34.]  In  the  same  connexion  as  in  this  place,  the  word  fj>oi%a- 
Atf,  adulterous,  is  found  also  in  Matth.  xvi.  4— a  passage  parallel  to 
the  present  both  as  to  its  fact  and  expression.  The  expression  must 
be  explained  by  the  uniform  Old  Testament  mode  of  speaking,  which 
conceives  all  that  is  unbelieving  and  unholy  as  born  of  unholy  love, 
and  therefore  presupposes  a  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  Lord. 
The  spiritual  turning  away  of  the  soul  from  the  Creator  to  the 
creature,  according  to  a  profound  conception  of  the  soul's  relation  to 
Grod  (to  which  we  shall  frequently  refer  hereafter)f  is  represented  as 
adultery.  Compare  Gesenius'  Hebrew  Lexicon,  s.  v.  nsr,  t^aw?,  m*.) 
The  dismissal  of  these  sign-seekers  evidently  militates  in  no  degree 
against  the  value  which  we  elsewhere  (John  v.  20,  x.  25)  see  Jesus 
putting  upon  his  miracles.  For,  as  his  miracles  had  always  a  moral 
aim,  they  suppose  a  susceptibility  of  mind  for  that  which  is  holy. 
Where  this  was  wanting,  they  had  so  little  effect,  that  even  the  most 
stupendous  miracles  could  be  ascribed  to  an  unholy  power  (ver.  24). 
It  thus  appears,  as  the  curse  of  sin,  that  divinity,  in  its  exalted  and 
blissful  manifestations,  withdraws  from  it.  To  the  evil  generation 
belongs  only  the  invisible  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas. 

Ver.  40. — To  what  extent  our  Redeemer  intends  to  give  to  the 
Pharisees  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas,  is  indicated  by  the  Evan- 
gelist himself  in  the  words  :  tionep  yd?  K.  r.  A.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  there  is  more  than  one  point  of  similarity  in  the  parallel  between 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  the  fate  of  Jonas,  which  is  here  brought 
forward.  In  the  first  place,  both  had  reference  to  the  persons  them- 
selves (on  account  of  which  Luke,  xi.  30,  employs  the  words : 
lyevero  'Iwvaf  orjuelov,  Jonas  himself  was  the  sign)  ;  secondly,  both 
the  deliverance  of  Jonas  out  of  the  fish,  and  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  were  unseen  signs,  given  only  to  the  faith  (of  the  adversaries) ; 
thirdly,  the  iv  ry  Kot/U'a  KTjTovg,  in  the  belly  of  the  fish,  forms  a 
parallel  with  iv  rq  aapdia  r?]g  y%,  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  as  a  con- 
trast to  the  demanded  sign  from  heaven.  The  main  point  of  resem- 
blance, however,  which  forms  the  connecting  link  between  the  two 
is  this,  that  as  the  preservation  of  Jonas  was  not  seen  by  the  Nine- 
vites,  so  also  the  greatest  miracle  which  takes  place  on  the  person 
of  the  Son  of  Man  was  to  remain  invisible  to  the  Pharisees  ;  the 
mystery  of  the  Lord's  glory  is  concealed  from  the  vulgar  eyes  of  the 

*  Rather,  primarily  birth,  than  descent,  generation,  race. — [K. 

f  Comparisons  with  John  viii.  41  are  here  quite  inadmissible ;  [toixaMf  does  not  sig- 
nify "begotten  in  adultery "  (spwrms),but  practising  adultery. 


MATTHEW  XII.  40-42.  467 

adulterous  generation,  'the  recently  attempted  explanation  of  this 
passage  which  understands  the  sign  of  Jonas  to  be  his  preaching  to 
the  Ninevites  (making  v.  40  a  misconception  by  Matthew  of  the 
words  of  Jesus),  springs  from  an  utter  mistaking  of  the  entire  con- 
nection, and  sufficiently  refutes  itself.  The  Saviour's  reference  to 
the  history  of  Jonas  contains  finally  a  hint  important  to  the  biblical 
interpreter  for  the  explanation  of  that  portion  of  the  Old  Testament : 
but  with  this  we  are  not  at  present  concerned.  Jesus  elsewhere 
(Matth.  xvi.  1,  ff.)  makes  use  of  what  occurred  to  Jonas,  to  compare 
with  it  his  resurrection.  The  three  days  and  three  nights  must 
be  explained  according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  speaking  ;  a  vv%Qri- 
wpov  —  &v»  does  not  require  that  just  three  times  twenty-four  hours 
should  have  elapsed.  The  Redeemer  rested  in  the  grave  on  three 
days,  and  thereby  fulfilled  the  prediction.  The  accuracy  of  Scrip- 
ture never  degenerates  into  minute  and  anxious  precision.  Like  na- 
ture, it  combines  regularity  with  freedom  ;  and  hence  it  affords 
scope  to  liberty,  and  states  and  fulfils  all  prophecies  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  they  may  either  be  believed,  or  contradicted.  The  Holy 
Scriptures  would  altogether  miss  their  aim  if,  by  mathematical  pre- 
cision and  strictness,  they  should  compel  belief.  The  parallel  be- 
tween iv  rig  Koihia  rov  Kirovs,  in  the  helly  of  the  whale,  sea-monster, 
and  KV  ry  Ka^dia  rfjg  JTJ^,  $n  the  heart  of  the  earth,  must  not  be  over- 
looked. The  former  words  are  a  quotation  from  the  LXX.,  which 
translates  Vs-u  ATT,  Jon.  ii.  1,  by  KrJTog.  The  na^dia  =  aV,  signifies 
the  interior  in  general.  The  term  seems  unsuitable  for  expressing 
repose  in  the  grave  ;  nor  is  the  parallel  very  appropriate.  Might 
not  these  words  have  a  further  reference  to  the  condition  of  the 
soul  of  Jesus  after  death  ?  (Compare  Comment,  on  1  Pet.  iii.  19  ; 
Ephes.  iv.  8.)  The  words  convey  but  intimations,  and  when  spoken, 
may  not  have  been  understood  either  by  the  Pharisees  or  by  the 
disciples — as  was  the  case  with  so  many  other  declarations,  the  full 
meaning  of  which  was  opened  to  them  only  at  a  subsequent  period. 
Moreover,  the  Lord  had  not  as  yet  distincly  spoken  of  his  death. 
The  whole,  therefore,  remained,  as  was  proper,  in  enigmatical  ob- 
scurity ;  it  was  for  the  present,  as  it  were  a  hieroglyph,  the  deci- 
phering of  which  was  reserved  for  the  future.  One  might  say  that 
in  such  passages  the  Redeemer  prophesies  of  and  for  himself ;  for, 
although  doubtless  the  whole  great  course  of  his  work  was  laid  open 
.  before  his  soul  when  he  began  it  by  being  baptized  in  the  Jordan  ; 
it  is  yet  not  improbable,  that  its  great  individual  incidents — espe- 
cially his  death  and  all  the  details  connected  with  it — were  but 
gradually  brought  with  greater  distinctness  before  his  human  con- 
sciousness. The  history  of  the  transfiguration  (Matth.  xvii.  1,  seq.) 
seems  to  countenance  this  view.  (Compare,  for  fuller  remarks,  the 
Commentary.) 


468  MATTHEW  XII.  42,  43. 

Ver.  41,  42. — The  mention  of  the  history  of  Jonas  leads  the 
Lord  to  yet  another  point  that  makes  manifest  the  debasement  of 
the  men  of  his  time.  Although  no  visible  sign  had  been  vouchsafed 
to  the  Ninevites,  they  yet  believed  when  Jonas  preached  and  called 
them  to  repentance  :  and  the  Queen  of  the  South  hastened  uninvi- 
ted to  Solomon,  that  she  might  learn  wisdom  from  him.  But  the 
Pharisees  would  not  even  accept  what  was  offered  to  them.  In 
these  comparisons,  the  reproof  was  so  much  the  more  severe,  as,  in 
both  cases  they  were  Gentiles — above  whom  the  Jews  were  so  fond 
of  exalting  themselves — who  gave  those  proofs  of  faith  ;  just  as  in 
the  similar  comparison  in  xi.  20,  seq.  The  judgment  and  resurrec- 
tion are  here  again  mentioned  as  the  period  of  final,  unerring  decis- 
ion, when  every  thing  will  be  manifested  in  its  innermost  nature. 
(NivKvlrat,  =  dvdpeg  Nivevi  =  ri.i.sii  IWSN,  according  to  a  well-known 
Hebraism  ;  Josh.  viii.  20 ;  x.  6.  The  (3aoiXiooa  vorov  is  the  NSC  fii?)*, 
1  Kings  x.  1.  The  vorog,  south,  points  in  an  indefinite  manner  to 
the  south,  to  Arabia  Felix.  The  -rrspara  rfjg  yyfc,  extremities  of  the 
earth  =  yiNn  I&BN  is  a  well-known  phrase  in  the  Old  Testament, 
taken  from  the  popular  view  of  the  world.)  The  less  was  the  splen- 
dour by  which  the  Mnevites  and  the  Arabian  queen  were  overcome, 
the  more  culpable  must  appear  the  conflict  with  holiness  in  its  per- 
fect ideal.  (Hkelov  'Iwva,  2o/to//wi>of  &6e}  comp.  Matth.  xii.  8.) 

Ver.  43. — Luke — who,  throughout  the  whole  of  his  eleventh 
chapter,  has  arranged  in  a  peculiar  manner  the  various  elements,  as 
we  shall  afterwards  see,  and  who  in  ver.  27  and  28  inserts  a  separate 
little  narrative — brings  the  following  words  (Matth.  xii.  43-45)  into 
immediate  connexion  with  the  demoniac  and  his  cure,  from  which, 
in  Matthew  also  (xii.  22,  seq.),  every  thing  sprang.  These  words 
may  indeed  have  had  their  place  after  the  history  of  the  cure  ;  but 
Matthew  has  arranged  them,  according  to  his  custom,  in  an  inde- 
pendent, and  by  no  means  unskilful  manner.  He  connects  them, 
after  the  closing  words  of  ver.  45,  "  so  shall  it  be  also  with  this 
wicked  generation,"  with  the  main  part  of  the  conversation  regarding 
the  wicked  and  adulterous  generation  (ver.  39).  It  might  indeed  ap- 
pear strange  how  such  language  could  be  applied  to  the  Pharisees, 
who,  after  all,  must  be  understood  as  referred  to  in  the  yevea  potxaMf, 
ver.  39.  As  no  demon  had  been  expelled  from  them,  we  cannot  see 
how  he  could  return  into  them.  Nay,  as  there  was  neither  spiritual 
desire  nor  faith  in  their  hearts,  we  can  as  little  see  how  the  casting 
out  of  a  demon  could  be  spoken  of,  even  although  we  were  to  un- 
derstand this  return  as  something  to  be  expected  in  the  future. 
It  is  only  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  passage  that  unbelief 
itself  could  be  regarded  as  the  demon  to  be  cast  out.  But  as  the 
Pharisees,  as  pars  pro  toto,  may,  with  full  propriety,  be  regarded  as 
representing  the  whole  people  who  had  imbibed  their  spirit,  so  might 


MATTHEW  XII.  43.  469 

the  Jewish  people  of  that  time,  viewed  as  a  greater  individuality, 
be  regarded  along  with  the  Jewish  people  of  former  times  as  a  per- 
son in  different  stages  of  development.  That  among  the  people 
there  were  always  some,  such  as  the  apostles  and  other  noble-minded 
individuals,  who  did  not  share  in  the  general  corruption,  forms  no 
argument  against  such  a  view ;  for  all  these  did  not,  ae  such,  pro- 
perly belong  to  the  people ;  they  rather  stood  above  them.  The 
Babylonish  captivity  appears  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  nation  as 
a  period  of  purification,  as  a  true  casting  out  of  the  demon  of  idol- 
atry amidst  fearful  paroxysms.  After  their  return,  the  Jews  appear 
in  greater  purity  than  they  ever  did  before.  But  instead  of  idolatry 
the  more  dangerous  Pharisaism  returned ;  and  this  was,  after  all,  the 
same  spirit  of  idolatry  in  different  forms.  It  was  in  the  fetters  of 
this  spirit  that  our  Kedeemer  found  the  nation,  which  would  not 
now  suffer  itself  to  be  emancipated,  so  that  it  resembled  a  demoniac 
who  had  sunk  back  into  his  old  disorder.  A  profound  and  signifi- 
cant application  of  the  comparison !  It  is  only  the  future  tense  in 
ver.  45 :  ovruc;  earai  iv  rq  yevEij,  ravrtj,  thus  shall  it  be,  etc.,  which  may 
appear  inconsistent  with  the  view  which  we  have  stated,  inasmuch 
as,  according  to  it,  every  thing  appears  as  past.  But  the  "  shall 
be"  can  evidently  refer  only  to  what  immediately  precedes  it :  "  the 
last  state  worse  than  the  first ;"  and  indeed  the  evil  consequences 
of  the  relapse  of  the  Jewish  people  manifested  themselves  very 
strikingly  only  after  they  lost  their  independence.  To  refer  the  OVTU$ 
Eo-ai,  "  so  it  shall  be,"  to  the  whole  parable,  so  that  the  casting  out  of 
the  demon  and  his  return  with  seven  others  were  still  in  the  future, 
would  make  the  whole  passage  unintelligible  ;  for,  neither  among 
the  Pharisees  alone,  nor  in  the  whole  nation,  do  there  appear  any 
events  which  might  be  viewed  in  this  light. 

In  the  words  of  ver.  43,  44,  we  have  parabolically  represented  a  na- 
tional Jewish  idea,  indeed  we  may  say  a  conception  of  universal  hu- 
manity. Evil,  viewed  as  discord,  as  desert,  reappears  in  the  physical 
world,  as  it  were,  an  echo  and  a  copy  of  evil  in  the  spiritual.  The  de- 
serts of  earth  are  witnesses  of  the  sin  of  mankind — a  visble  proof  of  the 
disappearance  of  Paradise.  As  then  kindred  object  appear  to  man 
as  in  close  connexion,  deserts  are  considered  as  habitations  of  evil 
spirits ;  so  that  what  was  made  desolate  by  sin  became  also  the 
local  abode  of  evil.  (Isaiah  xiii.  21 ;  xxxiv.  14 ;  Eev.  xviii.  2  ;  Tob. 
viii.  3  ;  Baruch  iv.  35.)  Of  this  simple  idea,  which  has  its  founda- 
tion in  the  depths  of  human  nature,  our  Redeemer  here  avails  him- 
self, that  he  may  draw  a  graphic  picture  of  evil.  The  whole 
description  bears  a  parabolic  impress ;  and  hence  the  several  fea- 
tures should  not  be  over-strained.  Still  they  rest  not  upon  an  empty 
accommodation  to  a  national  and  baseless  superstition,  but  upon  the 
simple  truth,  that  in  the  great  creation  all  the  parts  form  a  whole, 


470  MATTHEW  XII.  43-46. 

and  the  spiritual  world  is  reflected  in  the  physical.  Hence,  over- 
come by  the  power  of  God,  the  evil  spirit  appears  in  the  represen- 
tation of  Jesus,  escaping  to  the  desert  (TOTTO^  awdpog  =  £p7?//of,  i.  e. 
na-rw,  rrit  yn«,  Isaiah  xxxv.  1  ;  Joel  ii.  20)  seeking  rest  (on  dvd-rravaig, 
see  remarks  on  Matth.  xi.  29),  the  loss  of  which  is  a  characteristic 
of  evil.  But  change  of  place  cannot  give  rest  to  a  spirit — it  finds 
its  rest  only  in  God,  its  primeval  source.  It  is  therefore  represented 
as  returning  to  the  soul  which  had  become  the  abode  of  evil. 

Ver.  44. — Carrying  out  the  figure  of  the  dwelling,  Jesus  de- 
scribes the  guilt  of  a  man  freed  for  a  time  from  the  power  of  the 
evil  one.  The  term  0%oAa£wv,  vacant,  unoccupied,  points  out  the 
guilt  incurred  by  negligence  and  sloth — the  cause  of  a  relapse  into 
sin  ;  the  terms  oeoa^ievov,  swept  (from  aapdw,  "  to  sweep,"  Luke 
xv.  8),  and  KSKoa^fievov,  garnished,  denote  only  the  alluring  and 
charming  character  of  the  abode  which  a  purified  soul  offers.  Here  also 
the  figure  is  based  upon  the  notion  that  sin,  as  moral  defilement,  has 
its  analogy  in  the  visible  world  ;  he  who  is  unclean  is  allured  by 
what  is  clean  and  pure,  which,  however,  is  defiled  by  contact  with 
him.  All  these  are  figures  ;  but  how  deep  is  the  truth  which  lies 
in  them  !  The  soul  appears  here  as  the  bride  wooed  by  heaven  and 
hell.  She  may  receive  the  former  or  the  latter;  but  the  spirit  whom 
she  receives  transforms  her  into  his  own  nature,  and  makes  her 
his  bodily. 

Ver.  45. — Just  as  good  is  making  perpetual  inward  progress — as 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  its  being  stationary — so  evil  always 
grows  and  matures.  The  wicked  man  raised  to  the  sphere  of  the  good, 
but  sinking  back,  must  fall  the  more  deeply  the  higher  he  had  risen 
(John  v.  14).  There  are  gradations  also  among  the  bad  (nve.v\utra. 
novTiporepa,  compare  remarks  on  Ephes.  vi.  12).  The  discourse  closes, 
at  length,  with  the  general  idea,  that  every  relapse  is  more  danger- 
ous than  the  disease  itself.  This  was  likewise  evident  in  Israel. 
At  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  the  chastening  rod  of  the 
Lord  still  produced  its  effect ;  but  when  the  Creator  came  unto  his 
own  (John  i.  12),  his  own  had  become  estranged  from  him,  and  re- 
ceived him  not.  (Ta  npoj-a  is,  as  it  were,  the  original,  simple  state 
of  suffering  :  ra  So^ara,  the  state  of  relapse.) 

§  20.  THE  AREIVAL  OF  THE  MOTHEB  AND  BROTHERS  OF  JESUS. 

(Matth.  xii.  46-50 ;  Mark  Hi.  31-36  ;  Luke  viii.  19-21.) 

The  importance  of  Mark  for  the  right  understanding  of  many 
sections  of  the  Gospel  history,  through  the  addition  of  minor  traits, 
becomes  here  very  palpable.  The  accounts  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
leave  it  obscure  why  Jesus  did  not  even  admit  his  mother  and  his 


MATTHEW  XII.  46.  471 

brethren  to  his  presence.  The  declaration  also  that  his  disciples  are 
his  true  relatives  would  be  somewhat  startling,  if  Mark  did  not 
come  to  our  aid.*  At  the  beginning  of  the  section  previously  ex- 
plained (Mark  iii.  20,  21),  he  relates  that  Jesus  had  gone  into  a 
house  with  his  disciples,  and  that  this  house  was  surrounded  by 
crowds  of  people,  so  that  while  engaged  in  spiritual  labour,  they  could 
not  find  time  even  to  appease  their  hunger  (ware  [if]  dvvaadat  avrov? 
|U??Te  dprov  0ayetv).  Here  his  relatives  (ol  Trap  avrov)  came  to  lay 
hold  of  him  (Kparrjoat,  "  to  seize"  "  to  arrest"),  in  order  to  bring 
him  to  a  place  of  safety ;  for  they  said  that  he  was  beside  him- 
self (i-fear??).  (Concerning  ^CGT^I  compare  remarks  on  Matth.  xii 
23  ;  here  it  is  —  insanity  (jiaiveadai) ,  the  consequence  of  the  demon- 
ical possession  of  which  he  was  accused  by  the  Pharisees  ;  by  the  hos- 
tile power,  man  seems  to  be  driven  out  of  himself,  and  of  his 
self-possession).  This  remark  explains  the  whole  scene.  The 
wicked  Pharisees  had  brought  their  blasphemous  assertion  even  to 
the  relatives  of  Jesus,  who  had  been  induced  thereby  to  make  an 
attempt  to  bring  him  back  from  his,  in  their  view,  destructive  course. 
Without  this  hint  we  should  have  been  obliged  to  content  ourselves 
with  Luke's  statement  in  ver.  19,  "  they  were  not  able  to  come  at 
him  on  account  of  the  crowd,"  by  which,  however,  the  whole  occur- 
rence would  have  remained  enveloped  in  considerable  obscurity.  We 
can  easily  conceive  from  John  vii.  5,  how  the  unbelieving  brethren 
might  be  carried  away  by  such  a  rumour  ;  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
understand  how  even  his  mother  could  give  credit  to  it ;  we  should 
suppose  her  faith  to  have  been  immovable.  But,  in  the  first  place, 
it  may,  from  the  account  of  the  Evangelists,  be  supposed  that  Mary 
in  nowise  shared  the  opinion  of  his  brethren,  but  merely  accompa- 
nied them  on  their  journey,  in  order,  perhaps,  to  mitigate  their  per- 
verted zeal.  No  decisive  argument  can  be  advanced  against  such  a 
supposition.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  by  no  means  improbable 
that  Mary  experienced  moments  of  weakness,  when  her  faith  was 
fainting  and  struggling.  The  long  series  of  years  which  had  elapsed 

*  Against  this  identification  of  the  event  narrated  (Mark  iii.  31,  if.),  with  that  in 
Matth.  xii.  and  Luke  v.,  compare  my  Kritik.  der  Evang.  Gesch.,  2  Ed.,  §  63  and  70. 
Matthew  attaches  the  incident  of  Mark  iii.  20-21,  closely  and  definitely  to  his  selection 
of  the  disciples  (the  discourse  ou  the  Mount).  On  the  evening  of  this  day  it  occurred, 
while  Jesus  was  still  in  a  journey.  How  could  then  his  mother  and  brethren  in  Naza- 
reth learn  that  he  was  thronged  by  the  people,  and  unable  to  eat  ?  How  resolve  at  once 
to  traverse  Galilee  in  search  of  him?  How  find  him?  And  granting  they  had  found 
him,  how  could  this  be  expressed  by  "  came  out  to  lay  hold  of  him,"  since  assuredly 
the  "  coming  out"  makes  a  manifest  contrast  to  the  "house,"  Matth.  iii.  20,  and  must 
signify  a  coming  out  of  the  house  in  front  of  which  Jesus  was  teaching,  not  a  setting 
forth  from  Nazareth.  But  entirely  decisive  against  the  identification  is  the  fact  that  Mark 
himself  afterwards,  v.  32,  relates  the  visit  of  his  mother  and  brethren  as  a  separate  event. 
Had  it  been  his  mother  and  brethren  who,  v.  21,  had  already  sought  to  take  him,  how- 
could  he  be  informed  afterwards  for  the  first  time  that  they  wished  to  see  him  ? — [E. 


472  MATTHEW  XII.  46-50. 

since  the  great  events  which  she  had  experienced,  the  form  which 
her  son's  ministry  assumed — a  form  so  entirely  different  from  any 
which  she  may  have  imagined — may  have  been  a  severe  trial  for  her, 
and,  like  John  the  Baptist,  she  may  have  doubted  (Matth.  xi.  2, 
seq.)  She  had  certainly  not  given  up  her  faith,  but  it  is  possible 
that,  according  to  the  prophecy  given  to  her  (Luke  ii.  35),  it  was 
just  now  severely  assailed,  and  the  anxious  mother  came  rather  to 
obtain  consolation  from  her  son  and  Lord,  than  really  to  take  Mm 
home,  and  yet,  influenced  by  the  tormenting  rumour,  asking  at  the 
same  time,  Art  thou  he  who  is  to  come  ?  It  is  traits  like  these 
that  instil  so  much  life  into  the  evangelical  history.  It  is  wholly  er- 
roneous, as  already  remarked,  (Matth.  xi.  1),  to  conceive  of  all  the 
heroes  of  the  Gospel-history  as  unwavering  characters.  The  stupen- 
dous events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  must,  doubtless,  have  been  connected 
with  great  fluctuations  in  all  those  who  surrounded  him,  and  these 
form  integral  features  of  the  rich  picture  which  cannot  be  effaced. 
It  is  not  to  the  prejudice  of  the  holy  character  of  the  Scripture  per- 
sonages, that  they  manifest  such  inward  fluctuation.  No  saint  has 
ever  become  so  without  heavy  struggles,  in  which  the  billows  may 
often  have  passed  over  his  head.  Through  these  the  Son  of  God 
himself  led  the  way  for  his  people. 

Ver.  46. — While  Christ  was  yet  talking  to  the  people,  his  mother 
and  brethren  (concerning  them  compare  Matth.  xiii.  55)  arrived. 
They  stood  £|w  (see  Mark  iii.  34)  outside  the  house,  and  sent  in 
messengers. 

Ver.  47,  48. — On  receiving  information  thereof,  Christ  refused 
to  see  them.  This,  it  is  true,  is  not  stated  in  express  words  ;  but 
the  form  of  the-  language  :  "  but  he  answered  and  said,"  compels  us 
to  this  view.  He  neither  went  out,  nor  did  he  allow  them  to  come 
in;  on  the  contrary,  he  continued  his  discourse.  It  is  probable,  in- 
deed, that  he  may  have  seen  them  after  the  close  of  it,  but  not  be- 
fore it.  The  whole  answer  would  otherwise  lose  its  point. 

Yer.  49,  50. — Mark  adds  here  the  graphic  :  Trepift^e^dfj^vog  KVK^W, 
looking  round  about,  as  he  called  the  whole  company  of  his  disciples, 
"  my  mother,  my  brethren"  (ft  ^ip  ftov  KOC  ol  dSe^oi  /«o?;).  But 
ver.  50,  extends  the  expression  from  those  present  to  a  wider 
circle,  inasmuch  as  the  doing  of  the  will  of  God  (according  to 
Luke :  A6yov  rov  9eov  ditovetv  KOL  Troielv)  is  laid  down  as  the  test  of 
spiritual  relationship.  The  terms  mother  and  brethren,  suggested 
by  the  circumstances,  here  therefore  include  the  general  idea  of  re- 
lationship ;  this  is  conceived  by  Jesus  in  its  most  abstract  form,  as  a 
moral  and  spiritual  union  in  that  loftier  whole,  embraced  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  striking  point  in  this  representation  is,  that 
our  Redeemer  seems  entirely  to  rank  himself  as  a  member  of  this 
great  community — nay,  even  as  a  subordinate  member,  since  he 


MATTHEW  XII.  50;  LUKE  VII.  36.  473 

speaks  of  his  mother.  True,  we  might  here  appeal  to  the  current 
maxim,  that,  in  expressions  of  this  kind,  the  words  must  not  be 
overstrained.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  might  also  say,  that  this 
view  expresses  the  lowliness  of  the  Son  of  Man,  who  said  :  they  are 
my  mother  and  my  brethren,  where  he  might  have  said  :  they  are 
my  children.  But  even  this  would  not  fully  exhaust  the  thought ; 
and  it  would  appear  as  though  the  words  :  "behold  my  mother" 
were  used  by  the  Lord  to  indicate  a  peculiar  view  of  the  church, 
according  to  which  the  same  community  of  the  faithful  who,  when 
considered  separately,  are  his  brethren,  may,  when  viewed  as  a  unity, 
be  called  his  mother,  inasmuch  as,  in  the  church,  divinity  continu- 
ally assumes  the  form  of  humanity,  and  Christ  is  perpetually  born 
anew  in  her.  [Doubtless  the  sense  of  the  whole  is  simply  this,  they 
are  my  kindred,  nearer  to  me  than  any  earthly  relatives.] 


§  21.  A  WOMAN  ANOINTS  JESUS. 

(Luke  vii.  36 — viii.  3.) 

Matthew,  in  this  instance,  connects  the  following  13th  chapter 
with  the  preceding  (in  harmony  also  with  Mark  iv.  1),  by  a  chrono- 
logical statement,  so  definite  that  we  must  consider  them  as  belong- 
ing to  each  other.  Hence,  this  is  the  most  appropriate  place  for 
introducing  a  narrative  which  is  found  in  Luke  alone  ;  and  brought 
by  the  Evangelist  into  the  closest  connexion  with  the  account  of  the 
parable  of  the  sower.  True,  we  cannot  even  in  this  case,  think  of 
asserting  a  strict  order  ;  for,  while  in  Matth.  xiii.  1  we  find :  iv 
etceivy  rjfj-epa,  on  that  day,  so  that  the  parable  must  have  been  spoken 
on  the  same  day  with  the  events  of  the  preceding  chapter,  we  read 
in  Luke,  after  the  narrative  of  the  anointing :  iv  TO>  Kadegfjg  (sc. 
XpovGi)  ijevero,  by  which  formula  all  that  follows  is,  at  all  events, 
transferred  to  a  later  day.  This  section  ought  then  to  have  been 
placed  before  Matth.  xii.,  provided  that  all  in  this  and  chap.  xiii. 
took  place  on  one  and  the  same  day.  But  as  Matthew's  dates  leave 
it  altogether  uncertain  where  the  day  begins  ;  and  Luke  says  no- 
thing on  the  time  of  the  anointing,  it  was  impossible  to  fix  the  ex- 
act time  with  any  greater  certainty.  For  this  reason,  we  are  led  by 
its  agreement  with  what  follows  to  insert  it  here. 

With  regard  to  the  occurrence  itself,  the  first  question  which 
presents  itself  is — In  what  relationship  does  it  stand  to  a  similar 
event  narrated  in  Matth.  xxvi.  6-13  ?  (Compare  also  Mark  xiv.  3, 
seq. ;  John  xii.  1,  seq.)  Schleiermacher  (in  his  Versuch  uber  den 
Lucas,  S.  110,  if.)  has  lately,  in  an  acute  and  ingenious  manner, 
objected  to  the  diversity  of  the  occurrences,  which  was,  for  a  long 


474  LUKE  VII.  36. 

time,  unquestioned.  He  declares  them  to  be  identical,  and  thinks 
that  the  account,  as  given  by  Luke,  had  been  misunderstood  by  the 
reporter  from  whom  Luke  received  it,  and  noted  down  by  him  in  its 
present  form.  At  first  sight  there  appears  much  to  favour  this  view. 
It  appears  strange  to  assume  two  narratives  in  which  a  woman 
anointed  Jesus  at  a  feast  given  in  the  house  of  a  certain  Simon.  It 
appears  strange  that  a  woman  of  bad  reputation,  but  otherwise  un- 
known to  the  master  of  the  house,  should  have  obtruded  herself  on 
such  an  occasion.  But  assuredly  it  is  still  more  extraordinary,  that 
the  occurrence  should  be  the  same,  and  that  in  Luke  we  have  only 
a  distorted  representation  of  it.*  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be 
sure  easily  explained  how  Mary  could  so  freely,  in  the  company,  ex- 
press her  devotion  to  Jesus,  as,  according  to  the  accounts  of  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  John,  the  feast  was  given  by  a  family  on  friendly 
terms  with  Lazarus  ;  and  Simon  the  leper,  whom  Matthew  and 
Mark  mention  as  the  host,  must  be  considered  as  a  relative  or  inti- 
mate friend  of  this  very  family.  But  for  this  very  reason,  it  is  al- 
together inexplicable  how  this  same  friendly  host  should  have 
expressed  himself  in  a  way  which  was,  even  in  the  remotest  degree, 
liable  to  be  so  misunderstood,  as  Luke's  narrative  would  in  that  case 
make  it.  It  is  improbable  that  he  should  have  uttered  any  suspicion 
whatever  against  the  Saviour ;  and  still  more  improbable  that  he 
should  have  uttered  an  insinuation  of  that  kind  against  the  sister 
of  Lazarus.  Even  supposing  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to  denote, 
by  the  term  sinner  (a/iaprwAof),  a  sinful  woman  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  and  that  this  severe  view  of  the  word  arose  from  the  miscon- 
ception of  the  reporter  whom  Luke  followed  ;  yet  it  is  clear  that 
something  which  could  be  thus  misunderstood,  must  have  been  said 
by  Simon  the  leper.  For  such  a  supposition,  however,  there  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  accounts  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John,  not  the  slight- 
est occasion ;  nay,  everything  is  against  it.  The  expression  of  the 
woman's  love  seems  to  have  been  singularly  touching  ;  Judas  merely 
blamed  the  waste  of  the  precious  ointment.  Supposing  the  circum- 
stances to  have  been  such  as  those  so  minutely  described  by  the 
three  Evangelists,  any  occasion  for  all  the  speeches  which,  in  Luke, 
are  connected  with  it,  is  absolutely  inconceivable  ;  on  the  contrary, 
everything  testifies  against  the  assumption  that  any  such  speeches 
were  uttered  by  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  his  favourites  of  Bethany. 
Hence,  assuming  the  identity  of  this  transaction  with  the  anointing 
by  Mary,  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  at  Bethany,  Luke  has  not  only  mis- 
understood, but  totally  distorted  it ;  the  occurrence  has  become 
specifically  different.  But  this  is  partly  incompatible  with  the 

*  I  attach  no  weight  to  the  circumstance  that,  according  to  Luke  vii.  37,  the  event 
happened  in  a  town,  whereas  Bethany  was  a  K  uprj  (John  xL  1);  the  two  appellations 
may  not  have  been  so  strictly  distinguished. 


LUKE  VII.  36-38.  475 

authority  of  the  biblical  writings,  and  partly  also  with  the  position 
of  John,  who  was  no  doubt  acquainted  with  Luke's  Gospel  also,  as 
Schleiermacher  himself  supposes.  This  scholar  even  claims  to  find 
traces — although  he  has  not  mentioned  them — of  the  fact  that  John 
knew  both  the  accounts.  These  traces  I  have  not  been  able  to  dis- 
cover ;  but  so  much  appears  to  me  certain,  that  if  a  narrative  so 
completely  distorted  could  have  crept  into  Luke's  Gospel,  John 
would  not  have  omitted  to  notice  it  as  such.  If,  then,  the  identity 
of  the  events  involves  difficulties  so  substantial,  it  will  be  more 
natural  to  maintain  their  diversity.  For,  although  it  may  be  strange 
that  a  similar  occurrence  happened  twice  in  the  house  of  a  certain 
Simon,  yet  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  or  contradictory  ;  especially 
as  the  name  Simon  was  one  of  so  very  common  occurrence  among 
the  Jews.  And  whatever  seems  offensive  in  the  circumstance  of  a 
woman  intruding  herself  at  a  feast,  is  partly  mitigated  by  eastern 
usages,  partly  perhaps  in  the  case  of  this  woman,  by  special  rela- 
tions, altogether  unknown  to  us.  Were  it,  e.  g.,  a  woman  from  the 
Saviour's  more  immediate  circle,  her  approach  to  him  is  easily  ex- 
plained. Nor,  finally,  can  any  argument  for  the  identity  of  the  oc- 
currence be  founded  on  Luke's  omission  of  the  anointing  at  Bethany, 
as  similar  omissions  occur  in  all  the  Gospels,  in  John,  e.  g.,  of  the 
institution  of  the  supper.  In  the  opinion  of  many  ancient  inter- 
preters, this  woman,  who,  according  to  Luke,  anointed  Jesus,  was 
Mary  Magdalene  ;  but  the  opinion  is  wholly  without  proof.  Nay, 
as  she  is  immediately  (in  viii.  2)  named  without  reference  to  the 
event  here  narrated,  it  seems  improbable  that  it  was  she,  unless  we 
assume  that  Luke  purposely  omitted  to  mention  her  name,  and  the 
words,  d(f>'  TJ^  daipovia  Lnra  l^eXTj^vdei,  from  whom  seven  devils  had 
gone  out,  are  meant  as  an  indication  of  her  guilt.  As  there  is  thus 
an  entire  want  of  any  definite  account,  we  leave  the  person  unde- 
termined. 

Ver.  36. — It  is  possible  that  this  Pharisee  himself  had  been  healed 
by  Jesus,  and  that,  not  feeling  any  true  gratitude,  he  thought  that 
he  might  acquit  himself  of  his  obligation  by  an  invitation.  (See  re- 
marks on  ver.  47.) 

Ver.  37. — The  city  (m5/Uf)  is  here  commonly  understood  to  be 
Nain,  from  the  preceding  account  (vii.  11)  of  his  raising  the  widow's 
son  from  the  dead  at  Nain  ;  but  the  formulas  of  transition  in  ver. 
17,  18-,  20,  36,  are  by  far  too  general  to  establish  this  supposition. 
The  woman  is  called  d^apr^og,  i.  e.,  guilty  of  sexual  offences  (John 
viii.  7,  11).  'A/lajSaarpov  stands  for  oicevos  £%  dhaftdorpov. 

Ver.  38. — The  scene  must  be  conceived  of  in  accordance  with 
ancient  customs  :  the  banqueters  lay  stretched  out  (accumbere,  dva- 
KMveaOat),  their  feet  being  bare  or  covered  only  with  sandals.  The 
fervour  of  grateful  love  manifested  itself  in  her  affectionate  approach  ; 


476  LUKE  VII.  38-46. 

but  her  feelings  of  shame  and  contrition  allowed  her  to  approach 
only  the  feet  of  the  Redeemer.  The  case  was  different  with  Mary 
the  sister  of  Lazarus ;  her  love  was  not  less  ardent,  but  there  was 
less  of  the  sense  of  shame  ;  she  annointed  the  head  of  the  Lord. 
(Comp.  remarks  on  Matth.  xxvi.  7  ;  Mark  xiv.  3.  Both  here  nar- 
rate probably  with  greater  accuracy  than  John  xii.  3.) 

Ver.  39. — The  heartless  Pharisee,  incapable  of  being  moved  by 
such  an  exhibition  of  love,*  takes  occasion  to  make  his  reflections  on 
the  character  of  Jesus.  It  is  inconceivable  that  this  should  have 
happened  at  the  feast  in  Bethany  ;  for  such  a  person  there  was  no 
room  there.  (El-rrelv  iv  iavrti  =  teVa  i>3«.)  As  regards  earthly 
purity,  there  is  some  truth  in  the  thought  that  the  pure  is  contam- 
inated by  a  touch  of  the  impure  (see  remarks  on  Matth.  xi.  19) ;  but 
the  overwhelming  power  of  Jesus,  undreamed  of  by  the  Pharisee, 
renders  it  in  his  case  utterly  untrue. 

Ver.  40,  41. — The  Pharisee  who  was  not  so  wicked  as  he  was 
coarse-minded,  is  instructed  by  the  merciful  Friend  of  Sinners,  by 
means  of  a  narrative,  in  which  he  represents  both  the  relation  of  the 
woman,  and  that  of  the  Pharisee  himself,  to  God.  (Xpeo^aAtT?^  = 
(J^et/lrn/f,  found  elsewhere  only  Luke  xvi.  5. — Aav«a-?fc  —  nt?3,  fene- 
rator,  2  Kings  iv.  1.  In  the  New  Testament  found  only  here.) 

Ver.  42,  43. — The  comparison  between  the  more  and  the  less  of 
love,  necessarily  leads  to  a  parallel  between  the  Pharisee  and  the 
woman  ;  and  hence  the  supposition  is  very  probable,  that  the  Pha- 
risee too  was  indebted  to  Jesus  for  some  previous  kindness.  [?] 

Ver.  44-46. — The  conduct  of  the  Pharisee  is  contrasted  with  the 
fervent  love  of  the  woman,  who  did  more  than  was  demanded  either 
by  custom  or  by  the  circumstances.  The  water  for  the  feet  (Gen. 

*  I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  here  the  words  of  a  noble  man  who  reproves,  with 
reference  to  the  anointing  of  Jesus,  the  uncharitable  criticising,  by  a  cold  and  dead  gene- 
ration, of  the  ardour  of  his  own  love  for  the  Saviour,  and  of  its  manifestation.  The  ex- 
cellent von  Roth,  has  published  the  following  words  ofHamann,  in  the  preface  to  his  edi- 
tion of  Hamanri's  works  (S.  ix.  of  vol.  1):  "Jerusalem — it  is  the  city  of  a  great  king  I 
To  this  king  whose  name,  like  his  glory,  is  great  and  unknown,  flowed  forth  the  little  river 
of  my  authorship,  despised  like  the  waters  of  Siloah  that  go  softly  (Is.  viil  6).  C  ritical 
severity  persecuted  the  dry  stalk,  as  well  as  the  flying  leaf  of  my  muse ;  because 
the  dry  stalk  whistled  and  played  with  the  little  children,  who  sit  in  the  market-place, 
and  because  the  flying  leaf  was  tossed  about  being  giddy  with  the  ideal  of  a  king,  who 
could  say  of  himself  with  the  greatest  meekness  and  humility :  "  One  greater  than  Solo- 
mon is  here."  As  a  devoted  lover  wearies  the  ready  echo  with  the  name  of  his  beloved 
mistress,  and  does  not  spare  any  young  tree  of  the  garden  or  forest  with  engraving  the 
initials  and  characters  of  her  beloved  name :  thus  was  the  remembrance  of  the  fairest 
among  the  children  of  men  (Ps.  xlv.  3),  even  in  the  midst  of  the  king's  enemies,  like  unto 
a  Magdalene — ointment  poured  out,  and  flowing  down  like  the  precious  ointment  upon 
the  head  of  Aaron,  which  ran  down  upon  his  beard — flowing  down  to  the  skirts  of  his 
garments.  The  house  of  Simon  the  leper  was  filled  with  the  odour  of  the  gospel-anoint- 
ing ;  but  some  merciful  I  (or  rather  merciless)  brethren  and  critics,  were  angry  with  what 
they  called  the  ordure,  and  their  nostrils  were  filled  with  the  odour  of  death  only." 
Precious  and  profound  words  I  and  full  of  hints  for  those  who  can  see  and  hear. 


LUKE  VII.  46,  47.  477 

xviii.  4 ;  Judg.  xix.  21),  the  kiss  (Gen.  xxxiii.  4  ;  Exod.  xviii.  7), 
and  the  offering  of  ointment,  have  reference  to  well  known  Jewish, 
or  rather  universal  Eastern,  custom.  The  distinguished  Pharisee 
had  omitted  the  offer  of  such  courtesies,  because,  very  likely,  he 
considered  the  invitation  itself  a  sufficient  honour.  Jesus  reproves 
this  coldness  towards  his  benefactor — a  coldness  coupled,  at  the  same 
time,  with  such  self-conceited  exaltation  above  the  woman. 

Ver.  47, — The  contrast  before  referred  to  appears  here  anew. 
Although  the  words  :  o>  6e  dkiyov  d(f>ierai,  Tie  to  whom  little  is  for- 
given, state  the  thought  only  generally,  yet  they  may  very  appro- 
priately include  the  ool  dMyw  d(j>ierai,  to  thee  is  but  little  forgiven, 
which  was  not  uttered  solely  from  polite  considerateness.  The  first 
member  of  this  verse  presents  some  difficulty  ;  for,  according  to  it, 
love  does  not  appear  as  the  consequence  (as  in  the  second  member 
of  the  verse — quite  in  accordance  with  the  parable),  but  as  the  cause 
of  forgiveness.  The  o~t,  because,  as  well  as  the  Aorist  riyd-n^oe,  loved, 
represent  love  as  that  which  precedes,  and  is  the  ground  of,  forgive- 
ness. It  has  indeed  been  asserted  (comp.  Schleusner's  Lex.  ii.  325), 
that  on  stands  for  the  Hebrew  •>&,  ia«i  V?,  -j?:  in  the  sense  of  616, 
wherefore  ;  but  neither  the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  referred 
to  (Ps.  xvii.  6  ;  cxvi.  10  ;  Deut.  xxii.  24,  and  others)  are  to  be  thus 
understood,  nor  is  the  word  ever  found,  with  this  signification,  in  the 
New  Testament.  (Passages  such  as  John  viii.  44  ;  1  John  iii.  14, 
are  erroneously  referred  to.)  Further. — To  escape  the  difficulty 
offered  by  the  Aorist,  dyanav  is  taken  with  the  signification  :  "  to 
give  a  proof  of  love,"  so  that  the  sense  of  the  verse  would  be  :  "  thou 
mayest,  therefore,  infer  that  many  sins  are  forgiven  to  her,  for  she 
has  given  me  [in  consequence  thereof]  a  great  proof  of  her  love/' 
But  such  a  view  is  opposed  by  the  signification  of  dya-nav}  as  it  im- 
mediately appears  in  the  second  member  of  the  verse,  for  it  signifies 
a  state,  and  not  a  mere  action.  The  sense  evidently  is,  not  that  she 
has  loved,  and  that  her  love  is  now  past,  but  that  she  is  constantly 
living  in  love.  It  is  thrown  back  into  the  past,  merely  in  order  to 
connect  it  with  the  forgiveness ;  we  must,  therefore,  rather  attempt  to 
overcome  the  difficulty  involved  in  the  thought.  The  Koman  Catho- 
lic Church  has  so  far  misinterpreted*  it,  as  to  infer  from  it  the  depen- 
dence of  forgiveness  upon  merit ;  for  she  understands  love  (dyanfjoai) 
of  active  benevolence,  the  fruit  of  our  natural  powers,  and  essen- 
tial to  forgiveness.  According  to  the  parable,  however,  this  cannot 
be  the  sense.  But  the  ability  to  receive  forgiveness  presupposes 

*  De  Wette,  in  commenting  on  this  passage,  makes  the  remark :  "  "We  are  now  be- 
yond any  polemical  opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  justification  by  -works." 
I  very  much  doubt  this.  The  natural  resort  of  an  unrepenting  heart  is  the  effort  to  gain 
salvation  through  works ;  and  this  manifests  itself  even  within  the  evangelical  church,  in 
forms  not  exactly  Roman  Catholic. 


478  LUKE  VII.  48-60. 

love  existing  in  the  heart  as  a  receptive  power,  which  must  he  the 
more  intense,  the  greater  the  guilt  to  be  forgiven  appears  to  man. 
If  this  receptive  love  (which  is  identical  with  penitential  faith),  really 
receives  within  itself  the  grace  of  forgiveness,  it  then  unfolds  and 
manifests  itself  actively,  as  in  the  case  of  this  woman  towards  Jesus. 
In  this  love,  she,  as  it  were,  makes  the  power  which  enkindled  life 
in  her,  the  receptive  pole  of  her  activity,  so  that  in  these  words  of  our 
Lord,  love  is  represented  in  its  wondrous  forms  of  manifestation,  hy 
virtue  of  which  it  appears  sometimes  as  active,  sometimes  as  passive, 
hut  always  the  same.  The  sense  of  the  words,  therefore,  may  be  thus 
exhibited  :  he  who  is  to  believe  in  forgivenes  must  carry  within  him- 
self an  analogous  fund  of  (receptive)  love,  which,  as  soon  as  the  par- 
doning power  of  love,  as  it  were  the  positive  pole,  approaches  it, 
manifests  itself  in  the  same  ratio  as  the  guilt,  which  is  taken  away, 
increases.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  implied  in  this,  an  allusion 
to  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  the  Lord,  that  where  sin  abounds, 
grace  does  much  more  abound  (Bom.  v.  20) ;  not  that  sin  can  pro- 
duce any  thing  which  is  good,  but  only  because  the  compassion  of 
the  Lord  reveals  itself  in  the  brightest  manner  towards  those  who 
are  most  miserable.  The  Pharisee  was  not  without  love  ;  he  loved 
a  little,  thinking  that  he  had  received  little ;  but  the  woman  who 
had  received  every  thing,  loved  ardently,  with  all  the  energy  of  her 
life.* 

Ver.  49,  50. — With  this  is  connected  a  solemn  repetition  of  the 
forgiving  words  :  dfyiuvrai  oov  at  dfiapriai,  thy  sins  are  forgiven 
thee,  to  the  amazement  of  those  present.  Compare  concerning  this 
the  remarks  on  Matth.  ix.  iii.  where  faith  and  its  relation  to  forgive- 
ness are  treated  of. 

A  transition,  describing  in  general  terms  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
(Luke  viii.  1-3),  introduces  us  to  the  parables.  Our  Redeemer  went 
about  through  cities  and  villages  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God, 
arid  was  accompanied  by  living  witnesses  of  his  redeeming  power. 
The  persons  specially  named  are,  1.  Mary  of  Magdala.  (Compare 
remarks  on  Matth.  xv.  39.)  Her  condition  previous  to  her  restora- 
tion is  described  as  having  been  peculiarly  distressing  (on  Inrd 
daipovia,  compare  Matth.  xii.  45) ;  all  her  faculties  and  powers  seem 
to  have  been  a  prey  to  the  workings  of  darkness.f  2.  Joanna  the 

*  Compare  what  has  been  said  in  Matth  xiii.  58,  on  the  relation  of  receptive  love  to 
faith.  The  important  passage  Hos.  ii.  19,  20,  ought  also  to  be  compared,  as,  in  the  words 
of  the  prophet,  faith  and  love  penetrate  each  other. 

f  The  same  is  remarked  of  Mary,  in  Mark  xvi.  9,  in  a  connexion  altogether  different. 
It  therefore  appears  that  her  deliverance  from  demoniacal  influences  was  considered  as 
something  altogether  peculiar.  Her  former  condition  was  pre-eminently  distressing,  but 
BO  much  the  more  gloriously  was  the  power  of  the  Lord  manifested  in  her,  and  so  much 
the  more  evident  was  her  love  to  the  Lord.  Everywhere  (compare  the  history  of  the 
Resurrection)  she  is  named  first  among  the  women. 


LUKE  VII.  50;   MATTHEW  XIII.  1.  479 

wife  of  Chuza.  ('EmTpo7ro$-  =  olicov6fiog}  steward.)  3.  Susanna, 
nswi»,  lily.  The  two  latter  are  only  mentioned  here  ;  but  Mary 
Magdalene  is  known  from  the  history  of  the  Passion.  (Matth. 
xxvii.  55.)  According  to  that  passage,  however,  others  also,  and 
probably  those  mentioned  here,  adhered  stedfastly  to  the  Lord, 
even  to  the  cross  These  women  afforded  him  support  from  their 
private  property  (yndp%ovra}  opes,  facultates),  and  ministered  unto 
him.  The  rarer  the  glimpses  furnished  in  the  Gospel  history  of  the 
external  circumstances  of  the  Kedeemer's  companions,  the  more 
attractive  are  they  to  the  reader  ;  they  throw  a  peculiar  light  upon 
his  whole  conduct  while  on  earth.  His  indwelling  divinity  clothes 
itself  in  a  genuine  human  garb  :  his  glory  is  strictly  internal,  and 
displays  itself  in  outward  brightness  only  to  bless  others.  He  who 
supported  the  spiritual  life  of  his  people,  did  not  disdain  to  be  sup- 
ported by  them  bodily.  He  was  not  ashamed  to  descend  to  so  deep 
a  poverty  that  he  lived  on  the  charities  of  love.  It  was  only  others 
whom  he  fed  miraculously  ;  for  himself,  he  lived  upon  the  love  of 
his  people.*  He  thus  loved,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  loved,  in 
perfect,  pure  love.  He  gave  everything  to  men,  his  brethren,  and 
he  received  everything  from  them,  and  enjoyed  in  this  the  pure  hap- 
piness of  love,  which  is  perfect  only  when  it  is  at  the  same  time 
giving  and  receiving.  What  a  trait  in  the  character  of  the  Mes- 
siah !  Who  could  have  invented  it  !  He  who  feeds  thousands  by 
a  word,  lived  himself  on  the  bread  of  the  poor.  Such  a  life  must 
have  been  led,  to  be  so  recorded. 


§  22.  THE  COLLECTION  OF  PAEABLES. 

(Matth.  xiii.  1-53  ;  Mark  iv.  1-20,  30-34;  Luke  viii.  4-15;  xiii.  18-21.) 

The  progress  of  Matthew's  history,  brings  us  to  a  collection  of 
parables.  There  is  something  extraordinary  in  this  collection,  inas- 
much as  it  seems  not  to  be  in  accordance  with  this  mode  of  teach- 
ing, to  accumulate  parables.  For  as  they  are  intended  to  present 
truth  under  a  veil,  and  to  stimulate  to  meditation  and  inquiry,  their 
significance  would  be  weakened  by  bringing  many  together  in  an 
oral  discourse.  In  consequence  of  the  varied  relations  contained  in 
the  parables,  the  mind  would  rather  feel  distracted  and  bewildered 
than  stimulated  ;  and  hence  their  aim  would  be  missed.  But  the 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  it  is  only  women  of  whom  it  is  said  alnve^  dtrjKovovv  aiir^t 
OTTO  ruv  virapxovTuv  avralf,  who  ministered  to  him  with  their  substance,  and  who,  with  a 
touching  attachment,  were  devoted  to  the  Lord,  as  is  shewn  by  the  history  of  the  Re- 
surrection. The  weaker  half  of  the  human  race  were  the  first  to  arrive  at  the  know- 
ledge of  the  strength  which  they  possessed  in  Christ 


480  MATTHEW  XIII.  1. 

case  is  different  in  a  written  discourse.  The  reader  can  reflect  at 
leisure  on  the  individual  parable,  compare  one  with  the  others,  and 
thereby  obtain  a  clearer  insight  into  the  peculiarities  of  each.  To 
the  purposes  of  writing,  therefore,  a  collection  of  parables  is  admi- 
rably adapted.  But  although  according  to  what  has  been  stated,  an 
accumulation  of  recorded  parables,  is  at  once  appropriate  in  itself,  and 
specially  adapted  to  Matthew's  mode  of  collective  representation, 
we  may  still  ask  whether  it  were  not  better  to  assume  here  not  so 
much  a  collection  of  parables  spoken  at  different  times,  as  a  strictly 
exact  exhibition  of  the  Saviour's  mode  of  communicating  them 
in  succession.  To  support  such  an  opinion,  we  might  refer  to  sev- 
eral passages  in  Luke — especially  to  xiv.  28  ;  xvi.  31,  where  Jesus 
utters  a  series  of  parables,  while  yet  everything  proves  that  they  are 
uttered  in  their  original  connexion.  To  this  we  must  add  the  com- 
mon reference  of  all  .the  parables  here  collected  to  the  kingdom  of 
God,  so  that  there  was  no  risk  of  the  hearers  being  distracted,  inas- 
much as  one  parable  explained  the  other — add  also  Matthew's  mode 
of  delineating  the  scene  (v.  1,  seq.),  in  that  Jesus  teaches  sitting  on 
the  sea-shore,  and  surrounded  by  a  crowd  of  people,  and  finally 
brings,  xiii.  53,  his  instructions  to  a  close.  But  to  this  view  we  must 
object  (?)  that  Luke,  in  that  case,  must  have  transposed  some  of  the 
parables,  inasmuch  as  he  narrates  what  is  contained  in  Matth.  xiii. 
18-21,  in  quite  a  different,  although  a  very  appropriate,  connexion.* 
Moreover,  we  saw  already,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  what  an 
indefinite  sense  Matthew  uses  such  opening  and  closing  formlas.  (?) 
As  he  evinces  no  local  or  chronological  interest,  we  cannot  lay  much 
stress  upon  them.  It  cannot  well  be  reconciled  with  the  scene  as 
described  in  Matth.  xiii.  1,  seq.  that,  according  to  ver.  10,  the  dis- 
ciples came  to  him,  and  asked  him  concerning  the  meaning  of 
the  parable  which  he  had  spoken.  That  evidently  could  not  have 
been  done  in  presence  of  the  assembled  multitude',  but  belonged 
solely  to  the  private  circle  of  the  disciples.  Mark  iv.  10,  confirms 
this  supposition  ;  for  he  adds  that  this  question  was  addressed  by 
the  disciples  to  the  Lord,  when  he  was  alone.  Here,  thus  we  per- 
ceive, [only]  that  the  writer  has  anticipated  the  interpretation  of 
the  first  parable,  since  it  could  have  taken  place  only  after  Jesus 
had  withdrawn  from  the  crowd,  and  was  alone  with  his  disciples,  just 
as  is  stated  in  ver.  36,  on  the  occasion  of  the  second  interpretation. 
According  to  ver.  36,  it  appears  doubtful  whether  the  Lord  spoke 
the  last  three  parables  to  the  people,  or  to  the  disciples  only.  Mark 
and  Luke  quite  agree  with  Matthew  in  the  order  of  the  first  para- 
ble, but  the  subsequent  ones  are  differently  arranged.  We  can 
finally  by  no  means  deny  an  intimate  connexion  of  the  parables 
related  in  Matthew  xiii.;  on  the  contrary,  it  distinctly  comes  out  in 

*  When  carefully  examined,  Luke  gives  absolutely  no  connexion. — [E. 


MATTHEW  XIII.  1.  481 

the  communication  of  them.  The  seven  parables  which  Matthew 
communicates  in  this  chapter  are  intended  to  characterise  the  vari- 
ous relations  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  first  parable  considers 
the  relation  of  various  classes  of  men  to  the  divine  word  ;  the  sec- 
ond considers  their  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  the  wicked  one  ;  the 
third  and  fourth  depict  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in 
contrast  with  its  insignificant  beginnings  ;  the  fifth  and  sixth  point 
out  the  value  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and,  finally,  the  last 
pourtrays  the  mixed  condition  of  the  church  on  earth  until  the 
day  of  judgment. 

With  regard  to  the  parable  itself,  and  its  use  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the   Greek  terms  trapa/SoA.?),  -rrapoipia,  completely  correspond 
with  the  Hebrew  VBM.     Both  words  are  used  with  a  certain  indefi- 
niteness.    Just  as  Vwa  frequently  signifies  a  proverbial  saying  (Gnome) 
a  normal  precept,  so  also  does  Trapafto^jj  when  the  proverb  involves 
a  comparison.     (Luke  iv.  23  ;  Matth.  xv.  15.)     Common  similes 
also,  even  without  being  proverbial  or  normal,  occur  under  the  same 
designation.     (Mark  iii.  23  ;  Luke  v.  36  ;  vi.  39.)     Most  commonly, 
however,  the  name  is  used  in  the  first  three  Gospels  (for  neither  the 
term  nor  the  thing  itself  is  found  in  John's  Gospel,  or  in  any  of  the 
other  writings  of  the  New  Testament)  of  a  peculiar  mode  of  teach- 
ing, of  which  there  are  some  analogous  examples  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (Is.  v.  1  [which  Mashal  is  used  by  Jesus  himself.     Comp. 
Mark  xii.],  Ezek.  xvii.  1,  seq. ;  Judg.  ix.  7,  seq.  ;  2  Kings  xiv.  9  ;  2 
Sam.  xii.  1),  and  which  is  most  nearly  related  to  the  fable  (Adyoc, 
aTroAoyof,  atvof).     The  parable  differs  from  the  comparison  chiefly 
in  this : — that  in  the  latter  the  subject  is  not  individualized,  and 
conceived  as  a  fact.     True,  <it  is  often  rather  indicated,  than  fully 
developed,  as,  e.  g.,  in  Matth.  xiii.  44,  45 — the  parables  of  the  hid- 
den treasure,  and  the  merchantman.     But,  even  in  this  unfinished 
form,  it  differs  from  the  mere  simile  or  allegory,  inasmuch  as  the 
basis  of  the  definite  supposed  fact  may  still  be  recognised  in  it.    But 
it  is  more  difficult  to  point  out  the  difference  between  the  parable 
and  the  fable.     The  ancients,  especially  Aristotle  (Ehet.  ii.  20), 
whom  Cicero  (de  Invent,  i.  30)  and  Quinctilian  (Inst.  v.  11)  follow, 
place  the  difference  only  in  the  more  or  less  ample  treatment,  inas- 
much as  to  them  the  fable  appears  as  the  more  finished  production 
— the  parable  as  the  less  finished.     But  among  recent  writers,  Les- 
sing  makes  this  difference,  that  the  fable  represents  the  single  fact 
as  real,  the  parable,  only  as  possible.     According  to  Herder,  it  con- 
sists in  this,  that  the  fable  avails  itself  of  irrational  nature,  the 
parable,  of  the  rational  one.     None  of  these  opinions  is  free  from 
difficulties.     To  judge  from  the  biblical  parable,  it  also  represents 
the  occurrence  as  a  real  one,  and  not  merely  as  possible,  as,  e.  g.,  the 
very  first  parable  of  the  sower.    (Matth.  xiii.  4.)    This  makes  against 
VOL.  I.— 31 


482  MATTHEW  XIII.  1-9. 

the  view  taken  by  Lessing.  Against  that  of  Herder  are  the  Old 
Testament  parables  above  referred  to,  especially  Ezek.  xvii.  1,  seq., 
in  which  the  inanimate  creation  is  the  subject  of  the  action,  and 
yet  none  could  style  it  a  fable.  And  on  the  other  hand,  in  the 
fables  of  jEsop,  men  are  frequently  made  the  vehicle  of  instruction. 
The  difference  is,  without  doubt,  altogether  internal.  The  ground 
occupied  by  the  writer  of  fables  is  lower,  and  hence  his  aim  also  is 
subordinate.  The  fable  restricts  itself  to  earthly  virtues,  or  com- 
mendable qualities.  Now,  as  earthly  virtues — prudence,  cunning, 
laboriousness,  and  the  like — have  their  representatives  in  certain 
classes  of  animals,  the  irrational  animal-world  may  be  most  advan- 
tageously used  for  this  form  of  instruction.  If  men  are  introduced 
in  a  fable,  they  always  appear  in  a  character  allied  to  the  animal- 
world.  But  the  parable  introduces  us  into  a  higher — a  purely  moral 
domain.  It  seeks  to  exhibit  heavenward  tendencies  of  life,  or  di- 
vinely instituted  relations.  Hence,  its  element  is  pre-eminently  in 
the  world  of  men.  Where  the  parable  touches  upon  the  irrational 
element,  it  conceives  it  as  subject  to  a  higher  and  divine  control. 
Humanity,  where  it  enters  the  realm  of  fable,  appears  in  its  subor- 
dinate features  ;  irrational  nature  displays  in  the  parable  its  diviner 
element.  The  whole  spirit  and  aim  of  Scripture  are  adverse  to  the 
.  admission  of  the  fable  ;*  for  its  constant  endeavour  is  to  reach  and 
elevate  the  divine  principle  in  man  ;  the  parable  is  its  true  element. 
One  might  almost  style  the  whole  Old  Testament  history  a  con- 
tinuous parable,  conveying  divine  instruction.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Son  of  God  concealed  the  truth  revealed  in  him  under 
parabolic  veils,  in  order  thus  to  afford  instruction  for  all  degrees  of 
development  and  knowledge  at  the  same  tun:,  and  to  cause  alike 
that  one  class  should  be  initiated  into  the  profoundest  mysteries  of 
the  kingdom,  and  another  be  left  in  darkness  regarding  its  nature. f 
Ver.  1,  2. — Our  Redeemer  went  from  his  dwelling-place  (pro- 
bably in  Capernaum)  to  the  sea  (the  Lake  of  Gennesareth),  and,  in 
order  to  withdraw  himself  from  the  crowd,  he  entered  into  a  ship 
which  happened  to  be  there.  The  people  were  standing  on  the 
land  (t-Trt  rift  77/5-)  by  the  sea  (-rrpbs  ri]v  tidkaaoav,  Mark  iv.  1). 

Ver.  4-9. — The  parable  of  the  sower  is  one  of  the  few  of  which 
we  possess  an  authoritative  explanation  by  the  Lord  : — and  this  is 

*  At  the  most,  Judg.  ix.  7.  seq.  might  be  regarded  as  a  fable,  but,  owing  to  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  this  passage,  it  is  on  purpose  that  no  higher  point  of  view  is 
brought  out  in  it. 

f  Modern  literature  has  been  enriched  with  some  very  instructive  works  on  the  para- 
bles. Rettberg  and  SchuUze  are  the  authors  of  prize  essays  on  this  subject  for  the  Got- 
tingen  University  (both  published  in  Gottingen,  1828).  A  more  ample  treatise,  De  Para- 
bolarum  Jesu  natura  interpretations,  etc.,  was  written  by  Ungen  (Lipsias,  1828).  The  most 
recent,  and  the  fullest  exposition  is  by  Lisco.  It  is  translated  into  English,  by  Fairbairn 
(Clark's  Bib.  Cab.,  voL  xxix). 


MATTHEW  XIII.  9-23.  483 

of  the  greatest  importance,  not  only  for  the  understanding  of  the 
single  narrative,  but  also  for  the  deduction  of  principles  bearing 
upon  the  exposition  of  all  the  parables.  We  may,  especially,  gather 
from  it  what  is  usually  most  difficult  in  the  exposition  of  parables  : 
namely,  how  far  the  single  features  of  the  parabolical  discourse  have, 
or  have  not  any  significance.  In  the  same  manner  as  skepticism 
may  do  away  all  that  is  profound  in  the  word  of  God,  by  saying, 
that  this  or  that  is  mere  ornament,  so  may  superstition  make  a 
mountain  out  of  every  mole-hill.  (Ver.  4,  to  rd  neretvd  Luke  adds  : 
TOV  ovpavov,  analogous  to  the  Hebrew  b?»»n  tps.  BdOog  rfjs  7%  = 
Badela  jr\. — Kavpari&oOai  signifies  "  to  be  burnt  up,  scorched  by  the 
sun;"  fypaiveodai  " to  wither,"  "to  dry  up  altogether."  Ver.  7, 
dva(3aiveiv  =  nV»,  htes,  "  to  grow  up,"  "  to  spring  up."  Mark  iv.  8, 
has  the  same  numbers  as  Matthew — only  inverted — which  shews 
that  no  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  their  position.  The  well-known  for- 
mula of  emphasis  :  6  £%wv  <Lra  K.  r.  A.  calls  to  examination.) 

Ver.  18-23. — We  immediately  subjoin  to  the  parable  the  ex- 
planation by  the  Lord,  which  the  disciples  asked  from  him  when 
they  were  alone  (Karafwvag,  Mark  iv.  10).  The  intervening  im- 
portant discourses  we  shall  afterwards  consider.  The  words  :  dicov- 
aare  rr/v  7rapa/3o/b/v,  must  not  be  translated,  hear  the  exposition  of 
the  parable  ;  (Schleusner  has  even  a  special  number,  s.  v.  7rapa/3oAjy, 
in  which  he  assigns  to  it  the  signification  of :  "  explanation  of  a 
parable") ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  only  by  comprehending  it  that  a 
history  becomes  a  parable.  Our  Lord  draws  a  parallel  between  the 
four  kinds  of  fields,  and  the  four  kinds  of  disposition  of  heart  in  those 
who  receive  the  word  of  God,  scattered  abroad  (Luke  viii.  11).  The 
parable  here  passes  at  once  to  direct  discourse  ;  for,  whereas  in  the 
parable  the  seed  is  mentioned  which  developes  differently,  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  of  the  soil  into  which  it  falls,  here  the  individuals 
are  introduced  in  whom  this  development  takes  place.  The  direct 
discourse  is,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  mixed  up  with  the  parabolical 
language,  as  in  Matthew,  in  the  phrases  :  f>  irapd  rr\v  6dov,  im  rd 
uerpwd?/,  e/f  raf  dadvdaq  (JTrapeig,  that  sown  by  the  way-side,  on  the  rocks, 
among  the  thorns.  In  Luke  only  (viii.  14,  15)  the  neuter  several 
times  occurs.  As  regards  the  description  of  the  first  disposition  of 
heart,  it  is  not  represented  per  se,  but  only  in  its  consequences,  which, 
however,  admit  of  an  inference  as  to  the  disposition  itself.  A  hear- 
ing (aKovetv)  of  the  word  is  supposed,  but  not  an  understanding 
(owievai) ;  on  the  contrary  a  losing  of  it.  Although  a  positive 
cause,  lying  external  to  the  individual  described,  is  assigned  for  this 
losing  ;  namely,  the  prince  of  darkness  who  is  anxious  to  prevent 
the  gaining  of  souls  (iva  p)  maTevaavres  ouO&oiv,  Luke  viii.  12),  yet, 
it  is  quite  evident  that  the  possibility  of  such  an  agency  of  the 
prince  of  this  world  has  its  reason  in  the  disposition  of  the  mind. 


484  MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23. 


The  figure  (the  666g,  way,  road,)  indicates  a  hardness  which  arose 
from,  and  was  brought  about  by,  external  causes.  There  is  hi  them 
a  want  of  susceptibility,  an  inability  to  believe,  which  prevents 
them  from  receiving  the  word.  Even  though  in  such  persons, 
that  which  is  divine  should  find  a  certain  entrance  into  the  heart 
(h>  T7j  icapdip  *  Matth.  xiii.  19),  yet  it  is  not  received  in  its  nature 
and  essence  (f*r)  owievro^)  ;  it  does  not  sink  deep  enough  to  be 
secured  against  the  attacks  of  the  hostile  principle  ;  but  into  the 
777  itaXri,  good  ground  (ver.  23),  the  evil  power  does  not  enter, 
and  hence  the  divine  element  may  there  freely  display  itself.  It 
is  remarkable,  that  in  this  first  part  of  the  parable,  the  birds 
(nereiva)  (ver.  4)  are  explained  by  the  evil  one,  Trovrjpog,  (ac- 
cording to  Mark,  oaravdg,  according  to  Luke,  <5id(3okog  f)  —  an  ex- 
planation which,  if  it  had  not  been  given  by  the  Lord  himself 
would  scarcely  have  been  received.  The  figure  (ra  -nereivd)  would 
have  been  resolved  into  the  general  notion  of  injurious  influences. 
But  here  we  have  evidently  a  passage  hi  which,  as  in  v.  39,  our  Ke- 
deemer  speaks  of  the  devil  in  a  didactic  manner,  and  that  too, 
unsolicited,  and  in  the  most  intimate  circle  of  his  disciples.  The  sec- 
ond state  of  mind  described,  is  a  kindred  one,  although  differing 
widely,  in  its  outward  manifestation.  In  the  heart  there  is  the  same 
want  of  susceptibility  to  divine  influences  (ra  nerpudi])  ;  its  higher 
and  nobler  impulses  are  all  on  the  surface.J  The  beginning  of  life 
raises  fair  expectations  (juera  ^opaf  happdvei  Aoyov  6eoi>),  but  the 
plant  cannot  take  deep  root  (licfjng  [Luke  viii.  6]  =  vypor^f);  the 
nourishing  moisture  is  wanting  ;  such  an  one  therefore  is  for  a  season 
(npooKaipog,  explained  by  Luke  by  -rrpbg  Kaipbv  men-eve*,)  the  con- 
trast to  aluviog,  permanent  (2  Cor.  iv.  8).  In  the  hour  of  temp- 
tation (KV  Kaipti  neipaofiov),  which  Matthew  and  Mark  by  the  terms 
Ohtyis,  affliction,  and  6tGr/fj,6g,  persecution,  characterise  more  specially 
as  coming  from  without,  they  fall  away  (Luke,  dtyiaravrai  ;  Matthew 
and  Mark,  aitavdaXi&vrai  :  compare  concerning  andvda^ov,  the  re- 
marks on  Matth.  xviii.  8).  The  use  of  ijfaog,  sun  (Matth.  xiii.  6)  in 
parabolical  language,  in  the  signification  of  "  scorching  heat,"  is 

*  In  the  phrase  iatrap/uevov  kv  TJJ  icapdip,  it  is  not  necessary  to  interchange  e/f  with 
tv  ;  it  means  :  the  seed  which  was  scattered  abroad,  and  is  now  in  the  heart. 

f  It  is  to  me  incomprehensible  how  ScMeiermacher  (Glaubenslehre,  B.  1,  S.  213)  can 
say  that  "  the  terms  here  are  of  doubtful  interpretation,  and  that  the  enmity  of  men  to  the 
divine  word  is  as  obvious  as  the  reference  to  the  devil."  The  terms  :  6  aaravtic,  6  6ia- 
/Jo^of  (with  the  article,  and  without  any  thing  preceding  to  which  they  might  possibly  be 
referred)  cannot  by  any  means  be  explained  as  referring  to  man. 

\  The  figure  is  drawn  from  fields  common  in  the  Jura  formation.  The  dry,  parched 
limestone  is  covered  with  a  thin  soil  Amidst  the  coolness  of  spring  the  seed  germinates, 
but  the  growing  warmth  of  the  sun  heats  the  rock  and  dries  up  the  seed  ;  an  image  of 
the  religion  of  feeling  which  admits  the  animating  and  comforting  influences  of  the  Gos- 
pel, but  falls  away  when  it  seeks  to  make  a  new  man  (as  the  stony  heart  remains)  ;  of  the 
religion  of  fashion,  which  also  receives  Christianity  until  conflict  arises.  —  [E. 


MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23.  485 

found  in  the  Old  Testament  also  (Ps.  cxxi.  6  ;  Isaiah  xlix.  10,  comp. 
with  Eev.  vii.  16).  In  the  third  state  of  heart,  it  is  not  insensibil- 
ity which  prevents  the  development  of  the  divine  word.  Thorns 
choke  the  germ :  foreign  elements  are  blended  in  the  mind  with  the 
principle  of  divine  life.  [The  image  is  clear  :  the  heart  does  not 
remain  essentially  stony  :  a  real  conversion  has  taken  place,  but 
wicked  desires  are  not  thoroughly  eradicated.  Their  evil  seed  lurks 
in  the  heart,  and  springing  up  with  the  good  seed  chokes  it.]  As 
that  which  prevents  the  growth  of  the  heavenly  germ,  two  forms  are 
pointed  out,  in  which  sin  manifests  itself  in  the  present  course  of  the 
world  (aluv  ovro^).  First,  the  fieptpva,  care,  the  oppressive,  burden- 
some part  of  this  earthly  life,  whereby  men  are  drawn  away  from 
God  ;  and,  secondly,  the  dirdrr]  rov  -rrXovrov,  deceitfulness  of  riches, 
the  alluring  part  of  it,  which,  in  a  delusive  manner,  seems  to  ap- 
pease the  cravings  of  the  soul.  This  second  form  of  the  pernicious 
influences  of  the  worldly  principle  is  more  fully  described  by  Luke 
viii.  14,  in  the  additional  clause  :  rjdoval  rov  piov,  pleasures  of  life. 
(Btof  signifies  here,  like  seculum,  man's  temporal  existence  as  it  ap- 
pears blended  with  sin  [comp.  2  Tim.  ii.  4].  From  this  the  Church 
Fathers  derived  :  PMTIKOV,  faunicd  =  secularia,  "  what  belongs  to," 
"what  concerns  this  world."  Comp.  Suiceri  Thes.  s.  h.  v.  and  Luke 
xxi.  34 ;  1  Cor.  v.  3,  4.)  Mark  uses  instead  of  rjdovai,  pleasures, 
the  expression  al  rcepl  rd  Aocrrd  Im6v[uai,  lusts  of  other  things,  so  that 
other  allurements  of  the  world  of  sense  are  conjoined  with  wealth, 
as  exercising  equal  influence.  These  heterogeneous  things  withdraw 
from  the  divine  the  undivided  attention  which  it  requires,  and  hence 
it  cannot  unfold  itself  in  its  power.  (^v^i-nvivovai  rov  Aoyov,  anaprrog 
yiverai,  ov  rekeofopovoi,  according  to  Luke.  The  word  reAea^opew  is 
found  only  in  Luke  viii.  14  ;  it  signifies  "  to  bring  to  the  end," 
"  to  finish.")  But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  the  end  of  the  inner 
spiritual  life,  which  the  word  of  God,  sown  into  the  heart,  is  to 
attain  (Gal.  v.  22),  inasmuch  as  this  supposes  that  it  has  exercised 
its  full  influence  upon  the  whole  inner  man.  That  this  spiritual 
fruit  grows  up  from  the  divine  word  sown  in  the  heart,  is  pre- 
cisely the  characteristic  feature  in  the  fourth  and  last  disposition  of 
heart  which  the  Redeemer  calls  figuratively  good  ground,  a  spiritual 
soil,  with  full  receptivity,  in  which  the  progress  of  development  is 
interrupted  by  none  of  the  above-mentioned  obstacles.  The  various 
expressions  of  the  Evangelists  render  most  perceptible  the  influence 
of  the  heavenly  doctrine  upon  such  hearts.  According  to  Matthew, 
with  hearing  is  connected  a  owievai,  an  understanding,  a  grasping 
of  divine  truth  in  its  peculiar  nature,  as  contrasted  with  that  in 
ver.  19.  According  to  Mark,  it  is  a  iraoadE%ea6ai,  a  receiving  into 
the  depth  of  life,  opposed  to  the  losing  in  ver.  15.  According  to 
Luke,  it  is  a  Kare%£tv}  retaining,  which  points  out  the  activity  of 


486  MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23.    • 

the  will  in  preserving  the  acquired  principle  of  divine  life,  and  in 
repelling  all  heterogeneous  influences,  opposed  to  ver.  14.  Luke 
has,  moreover,  the  significant  expression :  iv  vnofiovq,  enduringly, 
in  order  to  represent  the  bringing  forth  of  fruit,  as  the  result  of  the 
gradual  penetration  of  the  inner  life  by  divine  influence,  and  by  no 
means  depending  on  the  mere  instantaneous  determination  of  the  will. 
Matthew  and  Mark  farther  point  out,  in  figurative  language,  the 
various  degrees  of  fruitfulness.  Without  overstraining  the  meaning 
of  "  an  hundred,  sixty,  thirty,"  we  may  yet  assert  that  the  numbers 
not  only  indicate  different  degrees  of  natural  endowment,  on  which 
depends  the  abundance  of  fruit  (comp.  Matth.  xxv.  14,  seq.),  or  the 
degrees  of  carefulness  expended  on  its  growth ;  but  also,  that  even 
in  this  part  of  the  great  kingdom  of  God,  everything  is  distributed 
according  to  order  and  rule;  that  thus  the  powers  and  susceptibil- 
ities implanted  in  various  individuals  are  not  lavished  indiscrimi- 
nately, but  bestowed  according  to  law  and  order. 

In  the  accounts  of  Luke  viii.  16-18,  and  Mark  iv.  21-25,  there 
follow  immediately  upon  the  explanation  of  the  parable  thus  given 
by  the  Lord,  certain  words  which  are  wanting  in  Matthew,  but  which 
are  not  without  importance  for  the  deeper  understanding  of  it.  The 
connexion  of  these  verses  with  the  foregoing  parable  is  obvious,  if  we 
bear  in  mind  that  the  Saviour,  in  passing  on  to  another  comparison, 
shows  how  the  apostles  were  the  good  ground,  and  therefore  called 
to  bring  forth  seed  and  fruit,  which  in  turn  were  to  be  still  further 
fruitful.  The  light  which  has  been  kindled,  and  which  is  intended 
to  diifuse  its  radiance,  is  thus  equivalent  to  the  seed  scattered 
abroad  and  designed  to  grow  up,*  and  the  general  idea  which  fol- 
lows, "  for  there  is  nothing  hidden/'  etc.,  contains  merely  the  affir- 
mation that  everything  wrapped  up  in  the  divine  word  shall  gradu- 
ally unfold  and  disclose  itself.  To  this  is  subjoined  the  admonition, 
P/.8Trere  ovv  m5f  aKovere  •  6f  yap  av  *%q  dod^aerai  avrw,  KOL  of  av  p)  £%q 
Kal  b  6oK£i  t%«v,  apdijaerai  dV  avrov,  beware  then  hotv  ye  hear,  for 
whosoever  hath,  etc.  The  same  words  stand  at  Matth.  xiii.  12,  but 
are  somewhat  differently  introduced.  The  original  connexion  may 
probably  have  been  preserved  by  Luke  and  Mark.  For  according 
to  them,  the  words  evidently  aim  to  guard  against  a  possible  mis- 
understanding of  the  parable,  to  wit,  that  the  states  of  mind,  de- 
scribed as  existing  in  different  men,  and  the  consequent  variety  of 
effects  wrought  in  them  by  the  word  of  God,  originate  in  any  inhe- 
rent necessity.  The  admonition  ftAK-nere  K.  r.  A.,  and  especially  the 
remark  of  yap  av  tyy  K.  r.  A.  takes  for  granted  the  freedom  of  choice 

*  The  same  intermingling  of  the  two  comparisons  of  seed  and  light  is  found  also  in 
Philo ;  ufluvara  sicyova  ftvvr]  TIKTSLV  dif  iavrt/f  ola  re  £ anv  ft  deo<f>Mif  V"OT  GKeipavTOs 
elf  avrijv  dicnvaf  vorjTaf  rov  trarpb^,  alf  ivvrjaeTat  Oeupelv  TU  ao<j>iaf  (5o}'//ara.  De  vita 
theoret.  Opp.  v.  ii.,  p.  482.  Mangey. 


.    MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23.  487 

and  the  influence  of  self-determination,  amidst  all  differences  of  in- 
ternal organization.  For,  according  to  the  connexion,  the  having 
and  not  having  (as  conjoined  with  the  "  seeming  to  have")  refer  to 
the  fruit  really  or  only  apparently  produced.  The  having  (£%eiv) 
admits  also  of  being  referred  to  the  good  ground,  to  which  the  fruit 
stands  related,  as  cause  to  effect  ;  but  the  former  view  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred. T  bus  understood,  the  entire  sentiment  (Gnome)  is,  that  the 
divine  principle,  where  it  has  once  manifested  itself  in  fruit-produc- 
ing power,  developes  itself  with  ever  increasing  purity  and  excel- 
lence ;  but  where  it  fails  to  be  efficacious,  the  man  not  only  sinks 
back  to  his  former  state,  but  still  lower,  and  loses  even  that  which 
he  vainly  imagined  himself  to  possess.  This  idea  plainly  leads  to 
the  further  conclusion  that  the  states  of  mind  depicted  in  the  para- 
ble are  not  to  be  conceived  of  as  definitely  restricted  to  certain  classes 
of  characters,  but  as  possible  to  be  realized  in  the  same  person  suc- 
cessively in  different  periods  and  situations  of  life,  so  that  equally, 
on  the  one  hand,  may  the  hard  stony  heart,  by  a  faithful  use  of 
grace,  be  ennobled  into  a  good  and  fruitful  soil  for  the  divine  word, 
and  the  good  ground,  on  the  other,  by  faithlessness,  be  desolated 
and  destroyed.  [Most  certainly  the  four  varieties  of  soul  represent 
not  four  classes  of  natural  endowments,  but  four  modes  of  relation 
to  the  Gospel,  e.  g.,  the  rocky  soil  marks  the  man  who  is  never  spirit- 
ually converted  ;  the  thorny  soil,  him  who  is  indeed  converted,  but 
by  unfaithfulness  in  pursuing  sanctification,  falls  from  his  state  of 
grace,  etc.*]  Mark  makes  an  addition  (Mark  iv.  26-29),  which  pre-  ^ 
sents  the  comparison  of  the  seed  sown  in  the  field  with  a  modifica- 
tion not  found  in  the  other  evangelists.  It  stands  in  immediate 
connexion  with  the  preceding  idea,  that  wherever  the  divine  prin- 
ciple takes  root  in  a  soul,  it  manifests  itself  in  ever  increasing  bless- 
ing according  to  the  power  which  dwells  in  it,  and  which  is  ever 
tending  to  outward  manifestation.  The  comparison  therefore  sets 
forth  this  indwelling  energy  (and  in  this  respect  it  is  allied  to  the 
parable  of  the  leaven),  quite  as  strongly  as  it  does  the  inability  of  him 
who  soweth  the  seed  of  the  divine  word  to  effect  its  growth,  that 
growth  proceeding  wholly  from  itself  as  the  general  law  of  all  devel- 
opment implies.  (Mark  iv.  26,  27,  contains  a  representation  of  the 
gradual  growth  of  the  seed  without  the  co-operation  of  the  sower; 
Kadevdeiv,  tyetpeaOat,  sleeping  and  waking,  is  merely  a  description  of 
what  happens  in  ordinary  life,  which  excludes  any  further  attention 
to  the  seed  that  has  been  sown.  Independently  of  the  efforts  of  man 
the  earth  itself  [avro^drif\  brings  forth  fruit.  What  properly  be- 
longs to  the  seed  is  here  attributed  to  the  earth,  as  determining  its 

*  The  first  variety  marks  a  heart  uninfluenced  by  divine  truth ;  the  second,  a  super- 
ficial, not  a  real  conversion;  so  the  third,  if  the  unfruitfulness  is  to  be  taken  as  abso- 
lute.—[K. 


488  MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23. 

growth  ;  otherwise,  it  is  of  no  importance  to  the  understanding  of 
the  similitude.  The  expression  avroparog,  self -moved,  spontaneous, 
does  not  occur  elsewhere,  except  at  Acts  xii.  10.  The  growth 
by  progressive  stages,  is  described  by  the  words  %6p~o$  [the  first 
springing  of  the  corn  which  is  grass-like],  ord%vg  [the  sprout- 
ing of  the  ears],  olrog  [the  ripened  grain].  In  verse  29th,  Tropodu), 
scil.  eavrov,  produces  itself,  is  used  after  the  analogy  of  the  Latin 
se  dare,  tradere,  as  Virgil,  Georg.  i.  287,  multa  adeo  gelida 
melius  se  nocte  dederunt.  Compare  also  the  Hebrew  &>»,  the  Chal- 
dee,  t&B,  Ezra  vii.  19  [see  Buxt.  Lex.  Talm.  p.  2422].  Aperravov 
sickle,  stands  for  the  labourers  bearing  the  sickle  ;  the  depiGrai,  see 
Matth.  xiii.  39.)  There  is  only  one  difficulty  in  this  parabolical  dis- 
course, as  given  by  Mark,  the  circumstance  namely,  that  the  sower, 
who  after  scattering  the  seed  goes  away,  is  none  other  than  the  Son 
of  man,  as  our  Lord's  explanations  afterwards  shew  (Matth.  xiii.  37), 
and  as  is  indeed  indicated  by  the  very  fact,  that  the  Lord,  when  the 
harvest  is  come,  sends  the  reapers  into  the  field,  an  act  which,  ac- 
cording to  Matth.  xiii.  39,  must  be  referred  to  the  time  of  the  judg- 
ment (itpiotg).  But  in  what  sense  it  can  be  said  of  the  Lord  that  he 
lets  the  field  grow  without  caring  for  its  advancement,  one  does  not 
well  see,  inasmuch  as  grace  is  required  equally  at  the  commence- 
ment and  throughout  the  course  of  the  divine  life.  Every  thing 
would  appear  to  harmonize  better  if  we  could  understand  by  the  man 
who  sows,  any  and  every  teacher  who  may  be  labouring  in  the  Lord's 
vineyard,  and  who  certainly  after  implanting  the  word  in  the  heart, 
must  leave  it  to  its  own  further  development.  Perhaps,  however, 
such  difficulties  shew  that  the  similitudes  ought  not  to  be  pushed 
thus  far.  The  very  nature  of  a  similitude  implies  that  on  some  point 
or  other,  the  thing  compared  must  differ  from  that  to  which  it  is 
likened,  else  the  two  would  be  identical.  But  in  this  case  we  are 
precluded  from  this  recourse,  by  observing  that  this  abandonment  of 
care  for  the  seed  sown  is  the  specific  point  of  the  comparison.  Un- 
less, therefore,  the  whole  is  to  have  the  appearance  of  inanity,  mean- 
ing and  force  must  be  given  to  this  point.  Perhaps  then,  according 
to  Matth.  ix.  15,  the  meaning  of  the  entire  parabolical  discourse 
may  be  taken  in  this  way  :  although  spiritual  life  in  its  development 
in  man,  is  never  absolutely  without  the  grace  and  presence  of  the 
Lord,  yet  may  it  be  said  that  there  are  two  special  periods  when 
that  grace  is  pre-eminently  active.  The  first  is  the  commencement 
of  the  life  (the  sowing),  the  second  is  the  ripening  of  the  fruit  (the 
harvest).  Between  these  points  lies  a  period,  during  which  it  may 
be  said,  that  comparatively  the  soul  is  without  the  Lord,  the  divine 
life  implanted  in  man  developing  itself  according  to  its  own  inherent 
power,  and  to  this  season  perhaps,  a  season  of  internal  struggle  and 
conflict,  the  Lord  here  refers.  Thus  understood,  the  comparison 


MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23.  489 

gains  for  itself,  at  least,  p,  specific  meaning,  and  its  connexion  is 
made  clear  with  what  had  gone  before.  Nor  does  this  explanation 
exclude  a  reference  to  individual  human  teachers,  only  this  does  not 
appear  as  the  thing  primarily  intended. 

It  is  in  another  sense,  however,  that  the  words  :  8f  yap  dv  £%$  «. 
T.  /L,  for  whoever  hath,  etc.,  are  interwoven  into  the  discourse  by 
Matth.  in  the  verses  of  which  we  are  now  to  give  the  explanation. 
According  to  ver.  10,  seq.  the  disciples  came  to  Jesus  and  asked  him 
generally  what  was  his  purpose  in  thus  speaking  in  parables  (dtari  £v 
•napa&oXai<;  AaAe«:  avrotf;).  The  Lord  replies,  that  he  employed 
them  on  account  of  the  differences  in  the  character  of  his  hearers, 
some  of  whom  he  wished  to  understand  him,  others  not.  In  speak- 
ing by  parables,  this  twofold  object  would  be  gained,  for  everything 
that  it  was  needful  for  him  to  state  would  thus  be  declared,  but  in 
a  form  so  veiled  that  only  those  understood  it  who  were  designed 
to  understand  it.  Among  these  the  disciples  are  mentioned  first  of 
all,  and  in  this  connexion  is  it  said  "  for  whosoever  hath,"  etc.,  (ver. 
12.)  The  idea  thus  appears  under  a  different  form  from  that  in 
•which  we  find  it  in  Luke  and  Mark.  The  apostles  are  represented 
as  they  who  have,  on  whom,  for  this  reason,  there  flows  in  the 
abundance  (iTepiaoev[j,a),  but  the  rest  as  they  who  have  not,  who  lose 
for  this  reason  what  they  already  have,  to  whom  the  appearance  of 
the  light  itself  tends  to  bring  destruction.  Before  considering, 
however,  this  idea,  which  is  further  developed  in  the  following 
verses,  we  must  attend  to  the  expression :  jttvmjpM  T^f  paaiXdaq 
r&v  ovpav&v  (rov  Qeofy,  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (of  God). 
It  marks  the  general  object  of  the  parables,  and  in  those  very 
parables  which  follow  throughout  this  chapter,  reference  to  it  is 
express  and  constant.  The  word  ^varrjpiov  then,  from  \LVEU  to 
initiate,  is  in  the  New  Testament  used  to  denote  the  divine 
counsels,  decrees,  doctrines,  which,  as  such,  could  never  have  be- 
come known  to  men  as  such,  to  men  if  left  to  themselves.  (So  the 
Heb.  in  in  the  Old  Testament.)  Nowhere,  however,  are  these  de- 
crees, etc.,  represented  as  absolutely  and  eternally  hid,  and  incapa- 
ble of  being  known ;  but  God,  who  at  the  prompting  of  his  own 
love  reveals  himself  and  all  that  is  in  him,  is  constantly  (by  his  diro- 
iutt,viJjL$)  revealing  his  mysteries ;  yet  not  in  such  a  way  that  they 
cease  to  be  mysteries  (^varTypta)  ;  they  retain  for  ever  their  divine 
character,  which  exalted  them  above  all  the  powers  of  discovery  be- 
longing to  man  himself ;  instead  of  hidden,  they  have  become  un- 
veiled [ivoTrjpia.  (1  Cor.  ii.  7  ;  Rom.  xvi.  25.)  According  to  this 
view,  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  denote  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  divine  counsels,  ordinances,  and  doctrines,  which  have  been 
revealed  through  Christ,  and  through  the  new  economy  which  he 
founded.  They  stand  in  contrast,  as  it  were,  with  the  mysteries  of 


490  MATTHEW  XIII.  18-23. 

the  law  (pvoTrjpia  TOV  vopov),  which,  after  .the  fulfilment  of  the  Old 
Testament  economy,  had  to  make  way  for  a  new  system  of  mysteries. 
This  whole  collection  of  mysteries,  however,  was  made  known  only 
to.  some  (v^iiv  dedorai  yv&vai),  from  others  it  was  hid  (according  to 
Mark  rolg  t^w,  to  those  without,  as  opposed  to  the  apostles  roig  EOW, 
those  within.  Compare  Paul's  mode  of  expression  on  this  subject 
at  1  Cor.  v.  12,  13  ;  Col.  iv.  5 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  12.)  In  the  dedorat,  it 
is  given,  there  is  an  unmistakeahle  reference  to  the  decree  of  God. 
It  implies  first,  the  positive  exercise  of  divine  grace,  in  communicat- 
ing the  blessing,  and,  negatively,  the  inability  of  man's  will  to  attain 
of  itself  the  thing  bestowed.  He  uses  the  expression  in  the  same 
sense  as  at  Matthew  xix.  11  ;  xx.  23,  and  especially  at  John  iii.  27  ; 
vi.  65  ;  xix.  11,  with  the  addition  of  dvuOev,  IK  rov  ovgavov.  But 
this  idea,  that  the  passage  asserts  the  giving  and  the  withholding  a 
knowledge  of  the  secrets  of  the  divine  kingdom,  forms  precisely  the 
great  difficulty  that  meets  us  in  this  and  the  following  verses  (ver. 
13-15),  where  at  greater  length  it  is  explained,  and  founded  on  Old 
Testament  prophecy. 

According  to  the  narrative  of  Matthew  xiii.  13,  the  idea  cer- 
tainly seems  put  in  such  a  form  as  to  intimate  that  Christ's  speaking 
in  parables  was  simply  a  consequence  resulting  from  the  blind- 
ness and  insensibility  of  a  portion  of  his  hearers.  For  the  expression 
employed  is,  I  speak  in  parables  because  seeing,  etc.  (KV  Trapafiokaig 
AaAw  on  fike-rrovTeg  ov  fiXtTtovoi  K.  T.  A.),  while  Mark  and  Luke  in  the 
corresponding  passage  give,  in  order  that  seeing  they  may  not  see 
(Iva  |3/le7rovref  firi  ft^eiruai),  words  which  obviously  mean  that  their 
failing  to  understand  him  was  the  object  designed  by  our  Lord  in 
using  the  language  of  the  parables.  But  that  in  Matthew's  account 
of  our  Lord's  discourse  he  meant  to  convey  no  meaning  different 
from  that  of  the  other  evangelists,  is  shewn  first  by  the  quotation 
from  the  Old  Testament,  which  of  itself  expresses  as  strongly  the 
same  idea,  and  in  the  next  place,  if  we  take  the  ort  in  ver.  13,  to 
denote  the  cause  which  led  to  his  speaking  in  parables,  it  implies 
something  self-contradictory.  "  For  this  reason  do  I  speak  to  them 
in  parables,  because  they  do  not  understand,"  is  a  mode  of  thought 
which  admits  of  no  justification,*  For  if  they  wholly  failed  to 
comprehend  him,  we  do  not  see  why  the  Lord  did  not  speak  at 
once  in  simple  unfigurative  terms,  in  which  there  would,  at  least, 
have  been  a  better  chance  of  his  being  understood  than  in  speaking 
before  men  of  dull  apprehension  in  language  obscure  and  veiled. 
And  according  to  this  view,  the  possibility  of  his  being  understood 

*  The  words  could  only  bo  so  interpreted  if  the  parables  were  to  be  considered  as 
means  for  facilitating  the  understanding  of  the  subject  referred  to.  But  against  this  view 
the  passage  iiceivois  <5£  ov  dcdorai  (v.  11),  is  so  decisive  that  the  point  admits  of  no  further 
discussion. 


MATTHEW  XIII.  10-15. 

must,  to  a  certain  extent,  be  assumed,  as  otherwise  it  would  have 
been  more  to  the  purpose  for  him  to  have  refrained  from  speak- 
ing altogether.  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea  is  a  very  simple 
one : — "  I  speak  in  parables  in  order  that  they  may  not  under- 
stand," and  this  view  has  been  attempted  to  be  got  rid  of  simply  on 
account  of  the  dogmatic  difficulties  it  involves — difficulties  which 
do  not  concern  the  interpreter  of  Scripture.  According  to  the 
connexion,  therefore,  the  words  in  Matth.  xiii.  13  should  be  translated 
only  in  this  way,  "  I  speak  to  them  in  parables,  for  seeing,  they  see 
not,"  so  that  the  result  is  represented  as  an  effect  contemplated  and 
designed.  This  is  plainly  shewn  also  immediately  afterwards  at  ver. 
15,  by  the  expression  nrj-rrore  iduoi,  lest  perchance  they  may  see,  in 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (comp.  Mark  iv.  12.)  Attempts  have  been 
made,  it  is  true,  to  put  such  a  meaning  on  the  ^-nore  here,  and  the 
tva  in  Luke  and  Mark,  as  to  take  away  from  both  particles  the  idea 
of  design.  And  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  fj-^rcore  (as  was  already 
remarked  in  regard  to  Zva  on  Matth.  i.  22),  sometimes,  in  the  New 
Testament,  wants  the  sense  of  intention,  or  design.  Especially 
convincing  in  support  of  this  view  of  ^TTOTS,  is  the  passage  2  Tim.  ii. 
25,  prjnore  do>  avrolg  6  debg  perdvoiav,  which  it  is  utterly  impossible  to 
translate,  "in  order  that  God  may  not  grant  them  repentance," 
but  rather  "  whether  God  (el  Trore)  will  not  bestow  on  them  repen- 
tance." According  to  this  the  passage  before  us  (ver.  15)  might  be 
rendered — whether  they  might  not  see,  whether  they  might  not  hear. 
The  reference  however  to  the  prophecy  (Isa.  vi.  9,  10),  which  is  also 
introduced  in  the  same  sense  at  John  xii.  39,  seq. ;  Acts  xxviii.  26, 
seq.,  admits  no  interpretation  of  the  passage  except  the  teleologicaL 
Matthew  and  also  Luke  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  follow  with 
unimportant  variations  the  reading  of  the  LXX.  while  John,  on 
the  contrary,  has  given  a  translation  of  his  own  which  expresses 
however  the  idea  with  the  utmost  distinctness.  He  writes  OVK 
fjdvvavTO  morevetv,  they  could  not  believe,  and  Iva  jj,rj  Iduoi,  that  they 
may  not  see,  so  that  only  the  utmost  violence  of  interpretation  will 
allow  the  passage  any  other  sense  than  this,  that  the  design  was 
they  should  not  understand.  The  connexion  of  the  words  also  in 
the  Old  Testament  clearly  shews  the  same  meaning.  (Compare 
Gesenius  in  his  Commentary  on  the  passage  Isa.  vi.  9,  10.)  It  is 
represented  as  the  penalty,  as  the  curse  of  sin,  that  it  prevents 
man's  understanding  the  revelation  of  divine  truth.  (The  fikz-nuv 
and  duoveiv,  seeing  and  hearing,  as  contrasted  with  the  ov  ovvisvcu, 
OVK  ldeiv}  not  understanding,  not  seeing,  denote  the  opportunity 
given  of  understanding  the  divine  will  as  being  unfolded  in  their 
immediate  presence,  while  they  did  not  possess  the  susceptibility 
necessary  for  embracing  it.  This  want  of  susceptibility — the  ina- 
bility to  believe — is  denoted  by  KnaxvvBij  =  i»»",  "  to  become  fat" 


492  .      MATTHEW  XIII.  10-17. 

in  the  sense  of  "to  become  unfeeling  or  insensible"  It  stands  as 
parallel  to  the  issh  and  ytf  n  which  in  the  Greek  are  rendered  /3apea>f 
dxovetv,  Ka[tjj.veiv.  Kappveiv  is  a  barbarous  form  for  Ka~afiveiv=. 
K^eieiv  rovg  d^da^ovg.  The  verb  Zmorpfyeiv  =  a  TO,  to  abandon  a 
path  which  had  been  already  entered  on,  denotes  here,  as  frequently 
elsewhere  the  turning  of  the  soul  from  darkness  to  light.  In  the 
last  clause,  KCU  Idoufiai  avrovg,  a  various  reading,  Idoopai,  is  found, 
which  certainly  has  been  transferred  from  the  LXX.  in  order  to 
soften  the  passage  by  giving  to  the  words  the  sense  of  "  but  I  will 
heal  them."  This  interpretation  however  does  not  agree  with  the 
connexion  of  the  Hebrew,  in  which  NS^I  a»j,  holds  a  position  entire- 
ly parallel.  In  Mark  accordingly,  the  whole  force  of  the  idea  is 
preserved,  though  the  figure  of  "  healing"  (/aao^at),  is  explained 
by  the  words  "  that  their  sins  may  not  be  forgiven  them,"  a  render- 
ing transferred  also  to  the  Chaldee  version.)  In  its  original  connex- 
ion, the  passage  Isa.  vi.  9,  10,  refers  primarily  to  the  contemporaries 
of  Isaiah.  Matthew  sees  in  it  a  reference  to  the  contemporaries  of 
Jesus,  not  judging  capriciously,  but  taking  a  profound  view  of  its 
real  import.  For  the  phenomena  of  the  prophetic  times  did  not 
differ  from  those  of  the  age  of  our  Saviour ;  regarded  in  their  es- 
sential relations,  they  were  identical.  Divine  truth,  as  disclosed  in 
the  discourse  of  Isaiah,  was  met  by  the  insensibility  of  the  people 
whom  he  summoned  to  spiritual  effort,  and  the  curse  of  their  sin 
was  that  they  did  not  even  recognise  the  evidences  of  divinity.  In 
the  time  of  Jesus  the  same  nation  went  through  the  same  experience, 
with  only  this  difference,  that  in  Jesus  there  was  exhibited  to  the 
people  the  purest  manifestation  of  Divinity,  of  which  Isaiah  pre- 
sented but  a  faint  reflection.  Inasmuch  then,  as  even  this  splendour 
of  divine  light  was  unrecognised  by  them,  the  curse  of  sin  was  ex- 
hibited in  all  its  magnitude,  and  the  prophet's  words  met  here  their 
entire  fulfilment.  [The  great  body  of  the  people  were  carnally- 
minded.  Hence  Jesus  was  compelled  to  select  his  disciples,  and 
hence  also  to  reveal  truth  in  the  enigmatical  form  of  parables,  in- 
telligible to  the  spiritually-minded  disciples,  but  destined  to  remain 
inexplicable  to  the  carnal  populace — to  all,  in  fact,  who  are  carnally- 
minded.] 

Ver.  16,  17. — In  contrast  with  the  curse,  which  strikes  these 
hardened  hearts,  follows  the  blessing  which  is  imparted  to  the  be- 
lieving and  receptive  spirits  of  the  disciples.  The  o^datyoi,  &ra, 
eyes,  ears,  are  mentioned  as  the  organs  of  reception  in  general, 
which  have  their  analogies  in  the  inner  man.  At  Luke  x.  23,  these 
words  occur  in  an  entirely  different  connexion,  to  which  we  shall 
attend  hereafter.  He  adds,  that  Jesus  addressed  these  words  to  the 
disciples  when  by  themselves  («ar'  Idiav  =  Karafiova^,  Mark  iv.  10, 
34),  a  fact  which  might  have  been  inferred  even  from  their  contents. 


MATTHEW  XIII.  16,  17  ;  24-30.  493 


The  comparison  of  his  disciples  to  the  Trpo^Tai,  prophets,  and  the 
dinaioi,  righteous  men,  of  the  Old  Testament  (Luke,  instead  of  the 
dlicaioi,  has  the  word  flaoiheig,  kings,  an  expression,  hoAvever,  which 
must  in  this  case  be  held  as  applying  to  righteous  kings),  would 
have  been  unintelligible  to  the  multitude.  Finally  the  idea  ex- 
pressed in  ver.  17,  is  simply  an  exposition  of  the  frequently  occur- 
ring Ttheiov  'luvd,  TT^SIOV  Sokon&vog  &de,  a  greater  than  Jonah,  than 
Solomon  is  here  (Matth.  xii.  41,  42).  All  the  longing  desires  of  the 
pious  throughout  the  Old  Testament  centred  in  the  Messiah.  To 
behold  him  was  the  loftiest  object  of  Old  Testament  hope.  This 
blessing  was  granted  to  the  disciples,  and  all  their  happiness,  all 
their  glory,  consisted  in  this,  that  they  were  illumined  by  the  radi- 
ance of  the  Sun  of  righteousness.  The  special  grace  thus  vouch- 
safed is  brought  to  their  remembrance  by  Christ,  not  to  exalt 
them  above  the  Old  Testament  saints,  but  to  lay  them  low  before 
the  Lord. 

Ver.  24-30.  —  From  this  same  figure  of  seed-sowing,  arises  a 
second  similitude,  which  however  contemplates  a  different  aspect  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Of  this  parabolic  statement  also,  an  authen- 
tic explanation  is  given  by  the  Lord,  ver.  36-41,  which  again  we 
shall  take  up  immediately.  (The  ^\LOL<^QI\  77  (3aaiteia  r&v  ovpav&v 
dvOpuTTu,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  to  a  man,  is  an  abbreviated 
form  of  expression  —  one  point  of  the  similitude  is  brought  promi- 
nently forward,  and  on  it  the  comparison  is  concentrated.  Here  it 
is  the  man  who  scatters  the  seed,  and  so  at  ver.  33,  it  is,  the  &M, 
leaven,  at  ver.  44,  the  Oqaavpog,  treasure,  at  ver.  47,  the  oayrjvri,  net, 
at  ver.  45,  the  avdputrog  £propo$-,  merchant.  The  word  TrapanOKvai  = 
t»»,  is  here  selected  with  reference  to  the  enigmatical  character  of 
parabolical  language  —  he  laid  the  parable  before  them,  for  solu- 
tion. In  the  aneipeiv  KV  ro>  dypw,  we  must  beware  of  supposing  that 
there  is  any  confounding  of  e/?  and  t-v,  he  sowed  upon  his  field  as 
the  place  of  his  labour.  The  night-time  is  described  (eV  r&  najdev- 
SELV  rovg  avdpuTrovg),  as  at  Job  xxxiii.  15.  Ver.  25.  —  £i£dvia,  in  the 
Talmud  v^r.  Comp.  Buxtorf.  Lex.  Talm.  fol.  680,  Suid.  r\  iv  TW 
CTirw  aipa,  i.  e.,  lolium  [  Virg.  Eel.  v.  37,  infelix  lolium]  cockle,  dar- 
nel. The  weed  shewed  itself  first  at  the  springing  time  [fi^aordveiv], 
and  latterly  when  the  fruit  was  forming  [itapnbv  iroielv],  and  it  could 
not  therefore  be  then  stifled  by  the  grain.  Ver.  28.  —  'ATreWovreg 
avA/le£(o/z£v,  go  and  gather  up,  represented  as  spoken,  after  the  anal- 
ogy of  the  Hebrew,  ^rt,  in  the  house  of  the  olKodca-rroT^,  but  neither 
here  nor  in  any  other  passage  where  ^Vrt  is  used  are  we  to  regard  it 
as  an  empty  pleonasm.  Ver.  30.  —  6epioTij$  —  6  depifav,  occurs  only 
here  :  deo^r)  is  also  an  dna^  Aeyo/zevov  —  n?a  _N.  Exodus  xii.  22.  An 
Old  Testament  comparison  lies  at  the  foundation  of  this  whole  par- 
able of  the  burning  up  of  the  tares.  Comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  7,  where 


494  MATTHEW  XIII.  24-30;  36-43. 

the  same  reference  had  already  been  made  to  the  final  judgment.  • 
The  dTroOfjKTj  corresponds  to  the   Hebrew,  IS'IK,  "granary,  store- 
house." 

Ver.  36-43. — The  explanation  of  the  parable  was  in  this  instance 
also  communicated  to  the  disciples  when  alone,  after  the  people 
had  been  dismissed  (ver.  36).  In  brief  clauses  our  Lord  expounds 
the  several  portions  of  the  comparison,  the  last  point,  however,  the 
final  separation  of  the  good  from  the  bad,  on  which  the  whole  turns, 
being  given  with  more  minuteness.  But  for  this  express  exposition 
by  Christ  another  interpretation  would  unquestionably  at  first  sight 
have  suggested  itself.  Jesus  explains  the  field  as  being  the  world 
),  the  good  seed  as  the  children  of  the  kingdom  (viol  T% 
,  the  tares  (^dvia)  as  the  children  of  the  wicked  one  (v lot 
TOV  7Tw??poi5),  and  consequently  the  whole  human  race,  good  and  bad 
together,  are  viewed  as  the  corn  that  is  growing  up  in  the  world,  a 
word  which  here  seems  like  orbis  terrarum,  to  denote  the  universal 
earth.  The  generality  of  this  reference  does  not  appear  at  first 
sight  to  agree  with  the  connexion,  since  the  subject  of  discourse  is 
not  the  whole  world  (ver.  24),  but  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  That 
in  the  world  at  large  evil  intermingles  itself  with,  good,  is  obvious 
at  a  glance,  but  it  is  strange  that  in  the  kingdom  of  God  itself, 
even  to  its  close,  the  same  intermixture  should  be  seen,  for  the  ex- 
press design  of  that  kingdom  is  to  represent  the  good.  Beyond  all 
doubt,  then,  this  similitude  must  be  understood  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  which,  however,  is  here  in  so  far  termed  the  world,  as  viewed 
ideally,  it  is  destined  to  pervade  the  whole  world,  or  conversely,  the 
world  is  ideally  represented  as  destined  of  God  to  become  his  king- 
dom.* The  derangement  of  this  original  purpose  by  the  influence 
of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  the  Saviour  here  explains,  and  defines 
the  relative  connexion  of  good  and  evil  in  the  church  of  God  on 
earth,  as  well  under  the  Old  as  the  New  Testament,  down  to  the 
final  judgment.  The  Son  of  man,  consequently  appears  here  again, 
in  his  ideal  dignity  (comp.  Dan.  vii.  13),  as  the  adversary  of  the 
devil,  as  from  the  beginning  onward  he  has  been  working  out  the 
victory  of  good  among  the  human  race.  This,  moreover,  is  another 
of  the  passages  in  which  Christ  refers  in  his  teaching  literally  and 
directly  to  the  devil.  The  disciples  had  requested  an  authoritative 
exposition  of  a  similitude  that  was  dark  to  them.  In  no  point  of 
view  was  there  an  occasion  for  concession  to  popular  prejudice  (even 
if  the  idea  of  such  accommodation  were  not  essentially  inconsistent 

*  The  (as  yet  vacant)  soil  on  which  the  seed  is  sown  is  the  world-.  The  field,  which 
consists  of  tares  and  grain  in  inseparable  mixture,  ia  the  church.  The  kingdom  of  God 
exists  not  in  visible  separation  from  the  world,  but  as  mingled  with  the  world — as  a  church. 
Hence  again  the  church  is  not  identical  with  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  a  blending  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  the  world. — [E. 


MATTHEW  XIII.  36-43.  495 

with  the  holy  character  of  Jesus),  and  still  less  for  recourse  to 
proverbs  or  any  thing  else  of  the  kind.  While,  however,  the  par- 
able as  a  whole  is  clear,  yet  on  particular  points  we  are  met  by 
important  difficulties.  Thus  the  contrast  of  the  child  of  the  king- 
dom (yloq  rfjs  ftaoi/teias'),  and  of  the  wicked  one  (rov  -nwT/poi)),  seems 
to  point  to  an  absolute  severance  of  individuals,  which  might  again 
seem  to  favour  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  But  the  prohibition 
forbidding  the  rooting  out  of  evil  (ver.  28)  at  once  sufficiently  shews 
that  neither  the  children  of  the  kingdom  are  conceived  of  as  en- 
tirely dissevered  from  evil,  nor  the  children  of  the  wicked  one 
as  wholly  dissociated  from  good.  The  one  class  appear  only  as 
in  a  certain  respect  the  concentration  of  good  (not  however  that 
any  irresistible  grace  preserves  them  from  falling  back),  the  other 
as  the  concentration  of  evil  (not  however  that  any  decree  of  repro- 
bation forces  them  into  wickedness,  and  holds  them  back  from  the 
possibility  of  repentance),  drawn  by  birth,  circumstances,  educa- 
tion, now  more  towards  the  one  element,  now  more  towards  the 
other.  For  though  all  men  are  involved  in  sin,  yet  are  they  not  all 
in  an  equal  degree  under  its  power ;  sincerity,  uprightness,  and  sus- 
ceptibility for  everything  good,  being  beyond  all  mistake  manifest 
in  some,  while  others  display  malice,  obstinacy,  hardness  of  heart. 
It  is  strange  however,  that  this  prohibition  to  separate  these  ele- 
ments before  their  becoming  ripe  should  be  the  thing  omitted  in  the 
Lord's  explanation,  whether  it  be  that  Matthew  has  abridged  his 
exposition,  or  whether  it  be  that  the  Saviour  wished  merely  to  set 
prominently  forth  the  great  final  separation,  thus  sufficiently  indi- 
cating that  until  that  separation  take  effect,  no  arbitrary,  and  there- 
fore merely  pernicious  attempt  to  dissever  them  ought  to  be  made.* 
It  is  indeed  self-evident  that  this  does  not  prohibit  the  severance  of 
sinful  from  virtuous  elements  ;  it  means  only  that  no  person  should 
be  shut  out  from  intercourse  with  the  good  as  incorrigible,  [nor 
should  the  church  attempt  judicially  to  burn  and  destroy  the  sup- 
posed children  of  evil.  What  is  forbidden  to  the  angels  will  hardly  be 
successfully  accomplished  hymen] :  there  is  always  the  possibility  that 
the  beneficent  influence  of  good  may  awaken  in  him  the  slumbering 
elements  of  improvement.  At  the  same  time,  however,  it  admits  of 
no  doubt,  that  according  to  the  meaning  of  this  parable,  all  violent 
interference  with  the  course  or  life  led  by  the  sinful  members  of  the 
church  (not  merely  death,  but  also  final  excommunication),  as  well 

*  The  view  of  this  parable  recently  put  forth  by  Steiger  (Ev.  K.  Z.  Feb.  1833,  p.  113, 
seq.)  to  the  effect  that  it  is  simply  prophetico-historical,  i.  e.,  that  it  contains  no  admoni- 
tions intended  to  guide  the  conduct  of  believers,  but  merely  instructs  us  in  the  truth 
that  the  church  shall  never  on  earth  be  pure,  is  obviously  untenable,  for  in  that  cape  the 
account  of  the  servant's  zeal  in  wishing  to  root  out  the  weeds,  and  the  Lord's  prohibi- 
tion, would  be  mere  decorations  incidentally  introduced  to  adorn  the  similitude — a  suppo 
sition  which  clearly  is  most  arbitrary,  and  destructive  to  the  character  of  the  parable. 


496  MATTHEW  XIII.  36-43. 

as  every  arbitrary  effort  to  realize  absolute  purity  of  communion  on 
earth  (Donatism),  is  forbidden,  because  the  former  leads  to  harsh- 
ness and  injustice,  the  latter  inevitably  to  pride  and  blindness.  For 
as  within  man,  even  the  best,  there  exists  a  mixture  similar  to  that 
which  prevails  without  him,  the  effect  can  only  be  most  pernicious, 
if,  overlooking  the  sin  that  is  in  his  soul,  he  holds  himself  forth  to 
others  as  a  pure  member.  The  view  here  inculcated  leads  simply  to 
humility,  mildness,  and  yet  to  constant  watchfulness,  for  the  improve- 
ment of  one's  self  and  others.  For  no  adtnonition,  or  appropriate 
church  discipline  or  other  methods  of  dealing  with  the  lives  of  sin 
fill  members  of  the  church,  not  forcible  in  their  nature  are  excluded. 
What  man  however  is  unable  to  separate,  that  the  all-knowing  God 
dissevers  finally  in  the  avvreXeia  rov  al&vog  TOVTOV,  end  of  this  world. 
The  meaning  of  this  expression  cannot  here  be  very  accurately  de- 
termined ;  generally  and  comprehensively  it  denotes  simply  the  con- 
clusion of  the  course  of  this  world's  affairs,  as  the  period  in  which 
good  and  evil  are  blended.  That  this  severance  is  advancing  of 
itself  step  by  step,  that  it  has  been  going  on  throughout  the  course 
of  the  world's  history,  that  it  was  decisively  manifested  in  the 
founding  of  a  visible  kingdom  of  God,  and  will  be  finally  consum- 
mated in  the  universal  judgment — are  truths  not  touched  on  in  the 
passage  here  before  us.  There  is  merely  presented  to  us  the  great 
principle  of  divine  judgment  as  unfolded  in  the  Bible,  that  one  day 
the  holy  and  the  unholy  shall  be  mutually  and  wholly  separated, 
but  up  to  that  period  they  shall  remain  ripening  together,  each  ac- 
cording to  its  own  nature.  (Comp.  in  regard  to  ovvreheia  r.  a.  what 
is  said  at  Matth.  xii.  31  ;  and  xxiv.  1).  On  account  of  the  judg- 
ment as  here  given,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  contemplated  as  the 
only  true  and  proper  existence,  from  which  it  is  merely  required  that 
foreign  admixtures  be  expelled,  in  order  to  manifest  its  real  nature 
(The  sending  of  the  ayye/Lot,  and  the  entire  imagery  under  which 
the  punishment  is  set  forth,  will  be  explained  more  fully  at  Matth. 
xxiv.  31;  xxv.  30,  31.  The  oicdvdaka,  stumbling-blocks,  causes  of 
stumbling,  be  it  also  observed,  and  the  TTOIOVVTE$  rrjv  dvopiav,  they 
who  practice  iniquity,  are  not  to  be  taken  as  synonymous — the  for- 
mer is  the  more  forcible  expression.  Kajutvof  vrvpog  =  irvp  alojviov. 
As  to  K^avOfibg  ical  (3pvyfib$  ddovruv,  see  on  Matth.  viii.  12.)  After 
the  expulsion  of  evil  as  the  element  of  darkness,  good  reveals  itself 
in  its  pure  nature  as  light.  (Tore  ol  dinaiot  EKhdpifrovat,  as  children 
of  light — children  of  God  the  -n-ar^p  r&v  0wrwv  [James  i.  17].  The 
words  are  chosen  with  reference  to  Dan.  xii.  3.  Comp.  Wisdom  iii 
7,  4  ;  Ezra  vii.  55.) 

The  third  parable,  of  the  mustard  seed,  is  at  once  seen  to  be  far 
less  fully  carried  out  than  the  two  which  precede  it.  It  approaches 
the  character  of  a  mere  comparison,  for  it  is  simply  the  nature  of 


MATTHEW  XIII.  36-43;  33.  497 

the  mustard  seed  itself,  and  of  the  plant  growing  out  of  it,  which  is 
amployed  to  illustrate  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  Luke  this  parahle, 
and  the  following  one  of  the  leaven,  also  occur,  but  in  another  con- 
nexion, which  we  shall  afterwards  consider  more  at  length.  (In 
the  parable  the  [unporepov,  and  the  juet^ov,  with  the  genitive  follow- 
ing them,  have  certainly  the  force  of  the  superlative,  only  too  much 
stress  in  this  respect  must  not  be  laid  on  them.  Ad%avov,  =  p-n;, 
vegetables,  cabbage-like  plants  generally.  The  •nereiva  rov  ovpavov, 
birds  of  heaven,  appear  here  in  a  connexion  wholly  different  from 
that  at  Matth.  xiii.  4,  as  representing  all  those  who  seek  protection 
and  refuge  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  according  to  Ezek.  xvii.  23, 
which  passage  seems  to  lie  at  the  foundation  of  this  whole  compa- 
rison. As  in  various  classes  of  objects  various  characteristics  are 
expressed,  so  in  the  parabolic  language  of  Scripture,  they  may  ex- 
press a  variety  of  conceptions.)  The  idea  set  forth  in  this  parable 
is  obviously  this — that  in  the  unfolding  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  its 
commencement  and  consummation  stand  in  reversed  relation  to 
each  other.  Starting  from  invisible  beginnings,  it  spreads  itself 
abroad  over  an  all-embracing  sphere  of  action.  But  as  the  king- 
dom of  God  itself  may  be  conceived  now  in  its  aggregate  character, 
now  in  special  relations  to  single  nations,  or  individuals,  so  also  with 
the  parables  which  set  forth  and  illustrate  its  separate  features. 
The  rich  thoughts  deposited  in  them  possess  the  same  truth  for  the 
whole  body,  as  for  the  private  members,  because  truth  is  univer- 
sally alike  and  consistent  with  itself. 

Ver.  33. — The  fourth  parable  of  the  leaven  is  closely  allied  to 
the  foregoing,  illustrating  like  it  the  all-pervading  power  of  the 
heavenly  element,  and  the  efficiency  of  which  does  not  depend  on 
the  extent  of  the  mass  on  which  it  may  have  to  act.  The  two  para- 
bles differ  simply  in  this,  that,  in  the  former,  that  of  the  mustard 
seed,  the  divine  kingdom  is  exhibited  as  manifesting  its  powers  out- 
wardly; in  that  of  the  leaven  as  unseen,  as  working  in  secret.  The 
leaven  shows  it  at  the  same  time  acting  on  another  element  which 
it  strives  to  draw,  and  transmute  into  its  own  nature,  while  the 
mustard  seed  illustrates  the  single  point  of  its  growth.  (Zvfj,ij,  leaven, 
is  used,  Matth.  xvi.  6 ;  1  Cor.  v.  7 ;  Gal.  v.  9,  in  a  bad  sense,  with 
reference  to  the  passover  feast,  Ex.  xiii.  3.  Its  pervasive,  seasoning 
power,  forms  here  the  single  point  of  comparison  with  that  divine 
element  which  wisdom,  the  heavenly  mother,  deposited  in  humanity, 
to  leaven  and  hallow  it.  The  word  fy/cpimretv,  hide,  indicates  its 
secret  invisibly-acting  influence.  "Atevpov,  stands  for  the  substance 
of  the  (jwpana,  the  meal,  of  which  the  dough  was  to  be  formed.  The 
measure  ad-ov,  according  to  JosepJius  [Antiq.  ix.  2],  contains  podiov 
KOI  rjfuai)  'IraXwov*  The  mention  of  the  particular  measure  indivi- 

*  Nearly  1£  peck  English— [K. 
VOL.  I— 32 


498  MATTHEW  XIII.  33 ;  44-50. 

dualizes  the  comparison  as  the  nature  of  a  parable  requires.  It 
were  wrong  expressly  to  apply  the  particular  number  to  spiritual 
subjects,  yet  are  we  not  perhaps  altogether  to  deny  some  reference 
here  to  spirit,  soul,  and  body,  as  the  three  powers  of  human  nature 
to  be  sanctified  by  divine  influence). 

Ver.  44-50. — The  last  three  parables,  which  however  are  given 
more  as  hints  than  in  full  detail,  exhibit  |he  kingdom  of  God  in  a 
way  peculiar  to  themselves.  They  bring  out  the  relation  which  men 
sustain  to  it,  while  the  preceding  ones  had  considered  partly  its 
nature  in  itself,  and  partly  its  relation  to  men.  This  peculiarity 
makes  it  not  improbable  that,  as  indicated  in  ver.  36,  these  latter 
parables  were  spoken  confidentially  to  his  immediate  disciples,  with 
whose  relations  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  singularly  harmonize, 
as  indeed  with  those  of  all  who  are  connected  with  it  like  them  as 
preachers  of  the  Gospel.  The  first  two  parables  respecting  the 
treasure  in  the  fields,  and  the  pearls,  stand  related  to  each  other 
in  the  same  way  as  those  of  the  leaven  and  the  mustard  seed.  They 
represent  the  absolute  value  of  divine  things  as  compared  with  the 
relative  value  of  every  prized  earthly  treasure,  and  enjoin  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  latter  for  the  sake  of  the  former.  The  abandonment,  for 
the  sake  of  heavenly  treasure,  of  a  man's  whole  possessions,  whether 
external  (property,  goods,  possessions),  or  internal  (opinions,  usages, 
general  aims  of  life),  the  apostles  had  begun  to  put  in  practice,  and 
the  Saviour  here  intimates,  that  step  by  step  they  would  be  required 
to  carry  it  out.  But  the  two  parables,  though  thus  allied,  have 
their  points  of  difference.  In  both  the  precious  object  (the  &r]aavp6g} 
or  the  juopyapm/^),  appears,  it  is  true,  as  concealed,  but  they  re- 
present human  effort  in  reference  to  the  concealed  treasure  under 
different  aspects.  In  that  of  the  pearls  a  noble  active  nature  is  ex- 
hibited, which,  under  the  pressure  of  inward  impulse,  seeks  after 
(£>/Tet),  truth,  and  strives  with  lofty  aim ;  till  at  last  in  divine  ob- 
jects as  revealed  in  Christ  their  centre,  it  discerns  the  substance  of 
all  that  is  desirable,  and  by  complete  self-renunciation  secures  its 
possession.  The  similitude  of  the  treasure  in  the  field,  on  the  other 
hand,  delineates  a  more  receptive  turn  of  mind  in  reference  to  spi- 
ritual things.  They  come  unsought,  unlocked  for,  yet  has  the  soul 
the  will  and  the  power,  at  any  price,  to  acquire  possession  of  them ; 
active  exertion  (the  ^r«v)  is  wanting.  The  history  of  a  Peter  and 
a  Nathanael  exemplify  these  different  forms  of  development  in 
human  life  (comp.  John  i.)  In  the  parable  of  the  treasure  hid  in 
the  field,  not  only  is  bold,  joyful,  self-sacrificing  zeal  (dnb  T%  %apti£ 
avrov  v-rrdyei),  commended,  but  praise  seems  also  given  to  pruden- 
tial management  in  divine  things,  inasmuch  as  the  man  who  finds 
the  treasure  hides  it  again,  and  then  buys  the  field  from  the  owner 
without  saying  any  thing  of  the  treasure  contained  in  it.  What- 


MATTHEW  XIII.  44^50. 

ever  might  surprise  us  in  this  will  be  considered  and  explained  when 
we  come  to  the  more  difficult  passage,  Luke  xvi.,  respecting  the 
unjust  steward.  Another  thing  peculiar  to  the  parable  of  the  pearls 
is  the  contrast  between  unity  and  plurality.  It  expresses  in  a  pecu- 
liar way  the  absolute  importance  of  the  one  thing,  and  the  merely 
relative  value  of  everything  else.  Naturally  this  one  thing  can  be 
no  mere  doctrine,  no  dogma,  but  something  essential ;  it  must  be 
the  divine  itself  in  humanity,  as  exhibited  in  the  person  of  Christ. 
That  man  should  in  his  own  experience  find  God  in  himself,  and 
himself  in  God — this  is  the  one  pearl  for  whose  acquisition  he  must, 
in  a  peculiar  sense,  be  willing  to  part  with  all  things  that  he  may 
win  all  things.  The  oneness  of  the  pearl,  however,  does  not  con- 
tradict the  idea  that  there  are  a  multitude  who  seek  it,  for  precisely 
because  it  is  in  itself  divine,  therefore  may  each  man  seek  and  find 
it.  It  exists  everywhere,  inasmuch  as  the  divine  germ  lies  slumber- 
ing in  all  hearts,  and  requires  only  to  be  awakened  by  quickening, 
and  life  from  on  high. 

The  last  similitude,  of  the  fishing-net,  is  again  closely  allied  to 
the  second,  of  the  tares  in  the  field.  Both  represent  the  interming- 
ling of  good  and  bad  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  are  to  be  sepa- 
rated only  at  the  end  of  the  day.  For,  what  in  the  parable  of  the 
tares  is  denoted  by  the  harvest,  is  here  shadowed  forth  by  the  com- 
pleting of  the  draught  of  fishes..  In  verses  49,  50,  the  parabolic 
discourse  is  so  explained  as  to  correspond,  word  for  word,  with 
verses  41,  42,  and  our  observations  on  the  former  passage  therefore 
apply  equally  to  this.  The  difference  between  the  two  similitudes 
might  perhaps  be  most  properly  stated  thus.  In  that  of  the  tares, 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  conceived  in  its  ideal  character,  as  identical 
with  the  whole  world,  while  in  this  of  the  fishing-net,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  taken  according  to  its  actual  appearance,  as  a  smaller  whole 
defined  and  marked  off  within  the  world,  but  including  within  itself 
the  tendency  to  universal  diffusion.  This  is  indicated  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  it  is  from  the  sea,  which  here  conveys  the  idea  of 
universality,  that  fishes  are  taken  into  the  net  of  God's  kingdom. 
Thus  explained,  the  passage  is  another  evidence  that  the  Saviour 
himself  did  not  in  his  visible  church  on  earth  acknowledge  an  abso- 
lutely pure  communion.  It  belongs  to  the  wondrous  economy  of 
God's  grace,  that  in  the  whole  course  of  man's  temporal  affairs,  evil 
obtrudes  itself  by  the  side  of  good.  As  in  the  ark  a  Ham  appears 
along  with  Shem  and  Japhet — as  in  the  company  of  the  twelve,  a 
Judas — so  has  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  spiritual  Jerusalem,  a  Babel 
in  its  ^osom.  By  this  arrangement  the  opportunity  of  repentance 
is  extended  to  the  wicked,  and  the  child  of  light  perfected  in  his 
conflict  with  the  enemy.  Not  till  the  icp(ai$  ta^drr),  last  judgment, 
will  an  entirely  pure  fellowship  of  saints  be  exhibited.  The  para- 


500  MATTHEW  XIII.  44-52. 

ble  gives  us  further  an  important  hint  as  to  the  ayyeAo/,,  to  whom 
the  work  of  making  a  separation  is  entrusted.  For  they  are  obvi- 
ously the  same  persons  who  first  cast  out  the  net,  then  draw  it  to 
shore,  and  afterwards  separate  the  fishes.  If  we  compare  then 
Matth.  iv.  19,  where  the  Lord  promises  tft  the  apostles  that  he  will 
make  them  fishers  of  men,  it  appears  that  by  the  ayyeAot,  we 
are  to  understand  no  spiritual  beings  from  the  heavenly  world,  but 
men  whom  God  has  furnished  as  his  messengers  and  servants,  by 
infusing  into  them  heavenly  powers  for  trying  and  proving  the  spi- 
rits of  others.  Thus  had  the  -ftb,  priest,  already  been  styled  at  Mai. 
ii.  7,  nisox; n^rr  ^N^?,  messenger  of  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Although 
therefore  the  apostles  in  one  sense  are  themselves  fishes  (IxQvs) 
caught  in  the  net  of  God's  kingdom,  yet  are  they  in  their  renewal 
and  regeneration  transformed  into  partners  in  the  spiritual  work  of 
him  who  first  took  them  by  the  might  of  his  love,  an  intimation 
which  is  not  without  importance  for  the  understanding  of  other 
passages,  such  as  Matth.  xxiv.  31  ;  xxv.  31,  compared  with  Jude 
ver.  14 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  3  ;  xi.  31. 

Ver.  51,  52. — Matthew  concludes  this  collection  of  parables 
with  the  question  of  Jesus  to  the  disciples,  ovvrjitaTe  rav-a  ndvra, 
have  ye  understood  all  these  things  ?  If  we  compare  Mark  iv.  13, 
we  find  a  word  of  reproach  uttered  by  Jesus  against  the  little  power 
of  understanding  possessed  by  the  disciples,  and  this  question  may 
therefore  be  translated — have  ye  now  then  at  last  comprehended  all 
this  ?  Not  that  they  should  have  gained  an  understanding  of  it 
without  explanation,  but  along  with  and  by  means  of  it.  For  Mark 
observes,  iv.  34,  «ar'  Idiav  rolg  naQijrdi^  avrov  tTtehve  ndvra,  he  pri- 
vately explained,  etc.  (The  verb  tmhveiv,  points  plainly  to  what 
was  enigmatical  [fi^h]  in  the  parabolic  discourses  of  Christ).  On 
receiving  the  affirmative  reply  of  the  disciples,  the  Saviour  gives 
under  another  similitude  a  view  of  the  peculiar  nature  and  ministry 
of  a  ypapnarevs,  scribe,  in  that  more  exalted  sense  in  which  the  cha- 
racter ought  to  belong  to  the  apostles.  The  6ia  rovro,  on  this  ac- 
count, refers  back  to  the  preceding  val  icvpie,  yea,  Lord,  of  the 
apostles,  the  force  of  it  being — "  on  this  account  can  ye  now  fulfil 
your  calling  for,"  etc.,  etc.  Obviously,  however,  the  reading  T§ 
Paoikeia  must  here  be  preferred  to  the  other  iv  (3aoiteia  or  el$  J3aai- 
tetav,  which  can  have  arisen  only  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the 
passage.  For  it  is  not  simply  the  members  of  God's  kingdom  who 
are  here  spoken  of,  but  those  who  act  as  teachers  in  behalf  of  the 
members.  The  expression  ypafifiarevs  rrj  (3amkeia  ^ia6r]revdd^  is  there- 
fore to  be  explained  as  meaning  a  scribe  who  has  been  instructed, 
and  who,  by  means  of  instruction,  has  become  capable  of  labouring 
for  the  kingdom  of  God ;  who  therefore  himself,  in  the  first  instance, 
belongs  to  it,  and  has  then  penetrated  into  its  deep  things  that  he 


MATTHEW  XIII.  51,  52  ;   34,  35.  501 

may  be  able  to  lead  others  the  further.  Obviously  our  Lord  intends 
to  contrast  his  apostles  with  the  Jewish  fc-n^b,  the  y^a^areig  ry 
(iaaiheia  r-rjg  y?/f  (ta9r]Tev&6vTe£t  scribes  instructed  for  the  kingdom  of 
earth.  These  latter  learn  earthly  wisdom  after  a  human  method 
for  earthly  ends  ;  the  apostles,  and  by  consequence,  all  who  resemble 
them,  draw  instruction  from  the  eternal  Word  (John  i.  1),  the  foun- 
tain of  all  wisdom  and  truth,  for  heavenly  objects.  The  relation  in 
which  these  spiritual  scribes  stand  to  the  church  is  compared  by  the 
Lord  to  the  relation  in  which  the  father  of  a  family  stands  to  the 
members  of  the  household.  He  has  wisely  provided  his  stores,  and 
out  of  them  divides  to  every  individual  according  to  his  wants. 
(The  drjoavpos  is  here  equivalent  to  the  rafiielov,  in  which  the  new 
and  old  supplies  lie  treasured  up.  The  £K,(3dkkeiv  is  equivalent  to 
tosta,  promere).  Probably  something  more  definite  than  mere 
diversity  is  denoted  by  the  naiva  KOI  nahaid,  new  things  and  old.  It 
is  most  naturally  referred  to  the  great  distinction  between  the 
law  and  gospel,  in  the  due  apportioning  of  which  lies  fundamentally 
the  whole  employment  of  one  instructed  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
since  our  spiritual  life  is  ever  oscillating  betwixt  these  opposite 
points,  as  will  be  further  explained  on  Rom.  vii. 

Ver.  34,  35. — In  conclusion,  let  us  consider  the  words  with  which 
Matthew  indeed  closes  these  parables  that  were  uttered  in  the  hear- 
ing of  the  people — but  which  have  a  general  application  to  the 
parabolic  mode  of  speaking.  Matthew,  with  whom  Mark  (iv.  34), 
agrees,  observes  that  in  general  Jesus  never  spoke,  %«ptf  7rapaj3o/l%, 
without  a  parable — that  is,  never  to  the  multitudes,  for  to  his  dis- 
ciples he  even  expounded  them.  In  considering  this  idea,  we  must 
in  the  first  place  understand  the  7rapa/3o/l?/  in  the  general  sense  of 
comparison,  similitudo;  though  we  scarcely  see,  even  when  it  is 
thus  explained,  how  the  position  can  entirely  be  made  good,  that 
Jesus  never  spake  without  comparisons.  The  shortest  mode  of  ex- 
planation is  to  view  the  negation  as  merely  a  relative  one,  or  if  this 
seems  inadmissible,  it  may  then  be  said  that  the  icaOug  rjdvvavTo 
aKovetVj  as  they  were  able  to  hear,  of  Mark  iv.  33,  supplies  us  with  a 
solution,  inasmuch  as  though  the  Saviour  did  not  always  speak  lit- 
erally in  similitudes,  yet  was  he  never  understood  aright  by  that 
multitude,  so  little  fitted  for  the  reception  of  spiritual  truths.  With 
this,  the  quotation  that  follows  well  agrees,  which  marks  distinctly 
the  mysterious  character  that  pervades  the  whole  ministry  of  the 
Messiah.  (In  regard  to  the  formula  OTTW^  TTvb/pwtf^,  see  on  Matth.  i. 
22.  The  passage  quoted  is  found  at  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2,  in  a  poem  by 
Asaph.  According  to  the  account  of  Jerome  {in  his  commentary  on 
the  passage],  the  name  of  Isaiah  stood  in  the  passage  of  Matth.  as 
given  in  the  old  MSS.,  but  without  doubt  it  was  interpolated,  because 
the  writer  of  the  Psalms  did  not  seem  to  the  transcriber  to  be  a 


502  MATTHEW  XIII.  34,  35. 

prophet — a  name  which  it  was  usual  to  restrict  to  the  persons  pri- 
marily so  called.)  The  first  half  of  the  "verse  agrees  with  the  Hebrew 
and  the  LXX.,  the  second,  however,  varies  from  both.  The  words 
d-;;?.— 'Btt  n«iTih  nyia«  are  translated  by  the  LXX.,  QOeygofwi  7rpo/3A?j- 
fiara  drr'  ap^jfc .  The  words  as  given  by  Matthew  are  so  peculiar  that 
they  furnish  another  argument  for  the  independence  of  the  Greek 
text.  The  phrase  d-rrb  naraQoXri^  Koopov,  in  the  sense  of  orf  dpxrjs, 
does  not  once  occur  in  the  Old  Testament ;  in  the  New  Testament, 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  very  common,  Matth.  xxv.  34  ;  Luke  xi.  50  ; 
John  xvii.  24,  and  often  besides.  At  the  foundation  of  it  lies  that 
figure  which  compares  the  world  to  a  building  whose  erection  com- 
mences with  the  foundation  (/carajSoA^).  Only  in  this  passage,  how- 
ever, do  we  find  the  verb  t-pe^yw,  which  the  LXX.  also  employ  at  Ps. 
xviii.  2,  in  translating  ?^an,  and  which  is  very  commonly  used  by  the 
Gnostics  to  express  their  emanation-doctrine  of  the  streaming  forth 
of  being.  The  expressions  ^«»,  parable,  and  n^t],  dark  sayings, 
imply  the  idea  of  dark,  enigmatical  discourse,  veiling  profound  and 
mysterious  thoughts.  The  d?"*"?*;  l"|i|"p|"!,  dark  sayings  from  of  old,  are 
the  eternal  mysteries  of  the  world  and  of  human  history  which  Christ 
unfolds  for  those  who  comprehend  his  discourse,  but  which  remain 
hid  from  the  multitude.  The  poet  utters  the  words  of  the  quotation 
in  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  psalm,  and  V»»,  parable,  and, 
rrtT'f!,  dark  sayings,  refer  primarily  to  the  leadings  of  God's  ancient 
people.  This  then  is  another  passage  which  seems  to  countenance 
the  idea  that  the  phrase  Iva  7rA?/pw0g  does  not  imply  the  fulfilment 
of  a  prophecy.  But  that  Matthew  saw  in  it  such  a  fulfilment — 
(even  though  erroneously),  is  clearly  shewn  from  his  translating 
B-tj? -•>&», /row  of  old,  by  d-rrb  «;ara/3o/l%  rov  Koofj,ov,from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world,  while  from  the  connexion  of  the  psalm  it  refers 
primarily  to  the  times  of  Moses.  The  expositor  therefore  ought  not 
in  this  case  to  reject  the  most  obvious  meaning  of  the  formula — a 
meaning  which  the  writer  himself  plainly  intended  to  give  it.  If  we 
ask,  however,  how  it  is  conceivable  that  the  Evangelist  can  see  in 
these  words  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy,  the  explanation  may  be 
given  in  the  following  way.  What  the  prophets  utter  as  men  in- 
spired by  the  Spirit  of  God  and  through  his  power,  is  really  spoken 
by  the  Logos,  the  Son,  who  in  all  inspired  Scripture  reveals  himself 
through  them.  In  thus  far  then  it  is  Christ's  part  alone  to  say, 
I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables,  for  without  his  power  it  is  impos- 
sible for  any  to  find  out  or  reveal  divine  secrets,  and  what  the  poet 
of  the  psalm  says  respecting  wisdom  and  revelation,  he  utters  only 
through  him. 


MATTHEW  XIII.  53-58.  503 

§  23.  JESUS  IN  NAZAEETH. 

(Matth.  xiii.  53-58  ;  Mark  vi.  1-6 ;  Luke  iv.  14-30.) 

The  older  expositors  (Storr  also,  and  Dr.  Paulus  at  the  present 
day),  assume  that  these  narratives  refer  to  separate  visits  paid  by 
Christ  to  Nazareth.  According  to  this  view,  Matthew  records  a 
later  visit  of  the  Saviour  to  teach  in  his  native  town,  Luke  an 
earlier.  As  to  this,  the  only  question  is,  how  to  connect  Christ's 
presence  at  Nazareth  on  the  first  occasion  with  the  imprisonment  of 
John  (for  according  to  the  parallel  passages  [Mark  i.  14  ;  Matth.  iv. 
12],  the  two  events  seem  to  stand  in  connexion),  and  next,  how  to 
find  for  the  second  visit  a  proper  place  in  the  history,  inasmuch  as 
Mark  puts  it  in  a  different  connexion  from  Matthew.  Schleierma- 
cher,  however,  has  conclusively  proved  (on  the  writings  of  Luke,  p. 
63),  that  the  narratives  refer  to  the  same  occurrence.  [?  ?]  For  if 
the  narrative  of  Matthew  were  transferred  to  the  later  years  of 
Christ's  life,  it  is  not  easy  to  suppose  that  the  inhabitants  of  Naza- 
reth could  ask  "  whence  hath  this  man  his  wisdom  ?"*  and  still 
less  can  it  be  thought  that  the  events  recorded  by  Luke  are  posterior 
to  those  related  by  Matthew.  In  internal  character  the  two  narra- 
tives are  entirely  alike,  and  the  single  argument  for  their  diversity 
is  the  chronology.  This  very  fact,  however,  is  another  proof  that 
there  is,  especially  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  absolutely  no  prevailing 
reference  to  the  succession  of  time.  Matthew,  at  the  commence- 
ment and  conclusion  of  his  narrative,  uses  general  formulge,  xiii.  53, 
fj,eT?}pev  eKeWev  nal  &66v  K.  r.  A.,  he  departed  thence  and  came,  xiv.  1, 
iv  eneivM  TW  Kaip<3,  at  that  time.  Mark  vi.  6,  breaks  off  so  indefi- 
nitely that  even  if  he  had  in  general  followed  the  thread  of  chrono- 
logy, he  here  obviously  let  it  fall  from  his  hand  with  the  words,  "  and 
he  went  about  the  villages  teaching."  The  words  of  transition — 
[jwfjpev  i/teWeV)  iv  IKE'IVM  TO>  itaiQ&  are  obviously  so  vague  that  they 
do  not  even  amount  to  anything  so  definite  as  afterwards  or  at  the 
same  time,  even  in  the  wider  sense  of  these  expressions — they  are 
rather,  looking  to  the  general  aim  of  the  Evangelist,  to  be  under- 
stood as  meaning  generally,  "  Jesus  came  once  upon  a  time  to  his 
native  city."  In  its  connexion  in  which  it  stands  in  Matthew,  the 
whole  narrative  is  introduced,  not  for  its  own  sake — it  serves  simply 
to  complete  and  crown  the  collection  of  parables.  The  whole  em- 
phasis lies  on  the  words  irodev  TOVTM  7}  oo^ia  avrrj  Kal  al  6vvd/j.ei<; ; 
whence  hath  this  man  this  wisdom  and  these  miracles  ?  This  wis- 

*  They  hesitated  not  to  ascribe  wisdom  to  Jesus,  but  the  more  they  acknowledged 
and  admired  it,  the  more  they  wondered  how  the  well-known  carpenter's  son  had  attained 
to  it.  How  widely  this  narrow-minded  sentiment  of  wonder  differs  from  the  rage  inspired 
by  his  language  of  rebuke,  Luke  iv.  14,  ff.,  is  obvious. — [E. 


504  MATTHEW  XIII.  53-58 ;   LUKE  IV.  16-19. 

dom  of  Jesus  was  unfolded  in  the  payable  here  recorded,  and  the 
relation  in  which  those  around  him  stood  to  it,  is  shewn  in  the  fol- 
lowing narrative.  They  knew  it  well,  but  took  offence  at  his  imme- 
diate earthly  connexions,  and  despised  on  this  account  the  blessing 
which  Jesus  had  come  to  bring  to  them.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand, 
relates  the  occurrence  for  its  own  sake,  and  is  doubtless  more  accu- 
rate in  the  chronology,  although  the  vagueness  of  the  formulae  (Luke 
iv.  14,  15),  does  not  admit  an  exact  determination  of  the  time  ;  it  is 
more  than  probable,  however,  that  the  occurrence  belongs  to  the 
commencement  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  Him,  therefore,  we  shall  fol- 
low mainly  in  our  exposition,  adding  at  the  end  the  particulars 
given  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 

Luke  iv.  16,  17,  represents  most  graphically  Christ's  entry  into 
the  synagogue  at  Nazareth.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  ancient 
synagogue,  men  who  were  deemed  trustworthy,  even  though  not 
rabbis,  might  -deliver  there  doctrinal  addresses.  They  usually  stood 
up  while  reading  God's  Word  (avio-n\  dvayv&vai,  ver.  16*),  the 
servant  of  the  synagogue  (vmjpenis,  ver.  20)  handed  the  roll,  and  the 
teacher,  after  reading  the  section,  sitting  down  delivered  his  dis- 
course (ver.  20).  After  a  section  from  the  books  of  Moses,  there 
followed  a  passage  from  the  prophets.  The  account  given  in  this 
narrative  corresponds  closely  to  the  usual  practice,  the  only  doubtful 
point  being  whether  the  Eedeemer  read  the  passage  from  the 
prophets  set  down  for  that  Sabbath  or  not.  To  me  the  latter  view 
seems  probable.  Otherwise  we  must  assume  that  first  an  extract 
from  the  law,  and  next  this  passage  from  Isaiah,  was  read,  but  in 
this  way  the  deep  impression  of  these  prophetic  words  must  have 
been  greatly  weakened.  Besides,  the  very  language  avam-rv^  TO 
f3i(3Mov  e£pe  K.  r.  A.,  unfolding  the  book  he  found,  etc.,  points  to  a 
selection — not  indeed  consciously  designed,  but  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit — of  the  precise  passage  which  predicted  the  appearance 
of  the  Messiah. 

Ver.  17. — The  (3ij3Xiov  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  a  roll,  so  that 
dvaTTTvoou  retains  its  literal  sense  of  unfolding  or  unrolling.  The 
person  who  presented  it  was  undoubtedly  the  i;ri,  the  vTrrjpKTtjg,  ver. 
20  (comp.  Buxt.  lex.,  p.  730). 

Ver.  18,  19. — The  passage  Isaiah  Ixi.  1,  is  quoted  by  Luke  freely, 
and  therefore  with  some  variations,  from  the  LXX.  Many  changes, 
however,  have  been  adopted  from  the  translation  into  our  text,  as 

*  In  reference  to  this  custom  quotations  are  given  by  Lightfoot  on  the  passage.  In 
the  first  it  is  said — Non  legunt  in  lege  nisi  stantes.  Imo  non  licet  legenti,  alicui  rei  inniti. 
TJnde  autem  tenetur  legens  stare  ?  Quia  Scriptura  dicit :  tu  autem  mccum  sta.  The 
reader  in  the  prophets  was  called  "PtJB)?,  *'• «-,  according  to  Buxt.  Lex.  Talm.  p.  1719, 
dimittens,  he  who  read  last  and  dismissed  the  people.  According  to  this,  one  may  sup- 
pose that  the  reading  of  the  passage  from  the  law  was  already  completed,  and  that  Jesus, 
as  maphtir,  now  concluded  the  service  of  God. 


LUKE  IV.  18, 19.  505 

for  instance  the  additional  clause,  Idoaadai  rovg  ovvrerpi^vovg  r^v 
Kapdiav  after  the  an-saraA/cg  jue.  The  clause  d-noo-el^ai  redpava^evov^  iv 
dfoaei,  on  the  other  hand,  is  found  neither  in  the  Hebrew  text  nor 
LXX.  translation  of  the  passage,  and  consequently  must  have  been 
inserted  by  the  Evangelist  quoting  from  memory.  The  passage, 
finally,  in  its  prophetic  connexion,  belongs  to  that  majestic  pre- 
diction respecting  the  rrtns  -o^  servant  of  Jehovah,  which  fills  the 
second  half  of  Isaiah.  It  contains  [the  prediction  of  that  future 
servant  of  God  who  will  execute  alike  for  Israel  and  the  heathen, 
what  Israel  could  not  accomplish  for  the  heathen,  nor  the  prophet 
for  Israel.  Comp.  Is.  xliv.  1  and  21  with  xlviii.  1-8,  then,  xlix.  5 
with  v.  6.]  In  this  light  does  the  Kedeemer  now  make  himself 
known  while  explaining  the  words  of  the  ancient  seer  as  fulfilled  in 
himself. 

The  expression  rrvev^a  £TT'  tys  —  ty  h;n,  Spirit  upon  me,  occurs 
also  in  the  same  form  at  Isaiah  xlii.  1,  lix.  21.  It  denotes  the  ex- 
alted character  of  him  who  was  sent  from  God,  and  furnished  with 
power  from  on  high.  The  words  e%pioe  jue,  anointed  me,  refer  more 
definitely  to  his  being  furnished  with  spiritual  power  for  the  royal 
and  priestly  offices  of  the  Messiah,  whose  various  forms  of  manifes- 
tation are  subsequently  specified.  Ov  dveicev  =  -\y^  is  nothing  more 
than  the  simple  on,  and  assigns  the  ground'  of  the  spiritual  anoint- 
ing, "for  he  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  poor."  The 
evayyehiaaoQai  Trr^olg,  bring  glad-tidings  to  the  poor  (t^J?  ">??^), 
points  out  that  which  was  the  primary  work  of  the  Messiah.  The 
TTTw^oi,  like  the  Trru^ol  nvKvpan  of  Matth.  v.  3,  are  those  who  have 
been  awakened  from  -  natural  death  to  anxiety,  who  have  been 
awakened  to  the  need  of  an  atonement.  The  good  news  is  brought 
to  these  men  through  the  very  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  through 
faith  in  him  and  through  his  help  against  sin  with  ah1  its  inward 
and  outward  consequences.  The  afams,  deliverance,  and  the  dvd- 
j3Aei/»f f ,  recovering  of  sight,  are  specially  brought  forward  as  the  real 
results  effected  by  the  Spirit-anointed  Eedeemer.  The  same  saving 
power  of  the  Messiah  is  represented  now  as  breaking  the  bonds  of 
sin,  then  as  removing  the  insensibility  of  the  spiritual  eye  ;  so  that 
it  is  merely  two  aspects  of  the  same  thing  which  are  brought  for- 
ward, and  these  under  physical  analogies.  The  expression  uripvfrt, 
proclaim,  («">^)  however,  does  not  imply  that  the  deliverance  and 
recovery  of  sight  were  merely  distant  and  future,  but  close  at 
hand,  so  that  the  annunciation  and  the  thing  announced  go  together. 
The  beautiful  idea  of  the  clause  idoaadai  rovg  awrerpipuKvovg  rrfv 
Kapdiav,  heal  the  crushed  in  heart,  which  expresses  the  gentle  min- 
istry of  the  Saviour  in  restoring  all  that  is  prostrated  and  crushed, 
is  omitted  by  the  Evangelist,  that  by  an  apparent  pleonasm  he  may 
repeat  the  idea  of  the  deliverance.  But  the  rsdpavoptvoi  puts  us 


506  LUKE  IV.  19,  20. 

at  once  in  mind  of  the  ovvTSTpipiiKvoi  ($pavw,  to  break  up,  to  crush  in 
pieces.  QpaveaOai,  to  be  in  a  state  of  brokenness,  equivalent  to  the 
Hebrew  tnjnin,  Is.  Iviii.  6).  And  the  dTToareiXai  iv  d<j)Koet,  is  in  the 
same  passage  parallel  to  the  o->»Brj  1-150.  The  ideas  of  healing,  deli- 
verance, restoration  to  our  original  state,  are  here  intermingled. 
There  is,  moreover,  something  remarkable  in  the  relation  between 
the  words  rv<f>^olg  dvdft^ei^iv,  dnoarelXai  re6pavop.evovg  iv  dfaoei,  and 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  passage,  Isa.  Ixi.  1.  Both  there  and  in  the 
LXX.  the  last  words  are  wholly  wanting ;  the  first  do  not  accurately 
correspond  to  the  Hebrew  text.  The  words  of  the  latter  run  tj->-)?o^ 
rrp-n;?s,  the  opening  of  the  prison,  etc.,  and  they  are  rendered  rv^diq 
dvdfiteifjtv.  The  expression  rpp-hp.s  had  been  read  as  one  word,  in 
the  sense  of  the  opening  of  closed  eyes  ;  tr-noN,  captives,  was  seem- 
ingly taken  to  mean,  men  with  eyes  bound  up;  but  this  does  not 
agree  with  the  connexion  of  the  passage  in  the  prophet,  which 
admits  no  other  rendering  than  "release  to  those  that  are  bound." 
The  words  dTroorelkat  redpavafievovg  ev  d<f>eoei,  which  are  entirely 
awanting  in  Is.  Ixi.  1,  have  undoubtedly  been  taken  by  Luke  from 
the  parallel  passage,  Isa.  Iviii.  6,  and  interwoven  here  with  the 
former.  In  this  expression  he  again  follows  the  LXX.  It  thus 
appears  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  deal  very  freely  by 
those  of  the  Old.  With  memories  uncertain  and  wavering  like 
those  of  other  men,  interchanging  passages,  confounding  words,  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  who  inspired  and  led  them,  yet  so  manages  all,  that 
nothing  untrue,  nothing  that  may  mislead,  has  resulted,  but  that 
truth  itself  is  rather  presented  in  a  new  aspect,  and  its  real  nature 
the  more  completely  revealed.*  Finally,  the  concluding  words, 
KTjpvgat  Kviavrbv  nvpiov  denrov,  to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord,  are  again  taken  from  Is.  Ixi.  1.  The  LXX.  have  simply  ren- 
dered Nip£  by  Ka^Koai.  The  ite-j— MS*,  acceptable  year,  like  the  dV» 
which  follows  it,  denotes  the  whole  period  of  New  Testament  life, 
during  which  they  who  receive  into  their  souls  the  mind  of  Christ 
the  beloved  (the  accepted  one),  appear  as  themselves  also  through 
him  well-pleasing  to  Grod.f  Ephes.  i.  6. 

Ver.  20. — It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Saviour  read  merely  these 
words,  or  also  the  following  verses.  To  me  the  former  supposi- 
tion seems  the  more  probable.  He  wished  simply  to  proclaim  a 
joyful  message,  and  invite  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  to  embrace 
it — the  immediately  succeeding  verses,  however,  contain  a  threaten- 

*  In  regard  to  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  compare  the  strik- 
ing treatise  by  Tholuck,  in  the  supplement  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  Hamburg,  1836. 

f  It  is  strange  that  several  of  the  fathers  understood  this  passage  to  mean  that  Christ 
preached  only  one  year  (and  some  months).  (Comp.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  1,  p.  407.  Orig. 
de  princ.  vol.  i.,  p.  160).  As  to  the  erroneous  nature  of  this  view,  see  more  at  length  in 
the  Comm.  on  John  ii.  13,  v.  L  vi.  4. 


LTJKE  IV.  20-22.  507 

ing  of  the  day  of  wrath.  (Hrvoou  is  found  only  in  this  passage,  to 
lay  together,  to  roll  up.  'Arm^u,  to  look  sharply,  steadily,  a  favour- 
ite word  with  Luke.) 

Ver.  21,  22.  —  The  expression  fat-oro  keyeiv,  he  began  to  say,  is 
by  no  means  redundant  ;  it  indicates  the  solemn  and  weighty  man- 
ner in  which  he  entered  on  his  discourse.  In  the  clause  i]  ypatftrj 
TreTrkrjpuTai,  the  Scripture  is  fulfilled,  Luke  gives  shortly  the  con- 
tents of  Christ's  address.  That  this  passage  particularly  must 
be  understood  as  an  authentic  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophecy,  can  admit  of  no  doubt.  (On  nkripuOijvai,  see  at  Matth. 
i.  22).  To  suppose  here  any  concession  to  popular  interpreta- 
tions, would  be  to  strike  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  Gospel. 
The  preaching  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth  was  a  preaching  of  grace  ;  the 
unbelievers  themselves  admitted  this,  but  they  took  offence  at  his 
earthly  connexions,  and  lost  by  neglect  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord.  The  expression,  Aoyot  rfj^  %dpiTo$,  words  of  grace,  refers  pri- 
marily to  the  outward  charms  of  the  Saviour's  speech,  but  these  must 
be  considered  simply  as  the  visible  result  of  the  grace  which  revealed 
itself  in  him.  He  manifested  before  his  hearers  the  fulness  of  his 
grace  and  truth.  (John  i.  14). 

That  it  was  the  well-known  family  connexions  of  Jesus  at 
which  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  took  offence,  is  shewn  both  by 
Matthew  and  Mark.  They  recount  the  names  of  all  his  family,  and 
wish,  as  it  were,  to  mislead  themselves  into  the  conviction  that  he  is 
merely  one  of  them.  Like  all  sensual  men,  strangers  to  the  spirit- 
ualities of  the  unseen  world,  they  look  on  all  that  is  divine,  for  the 
perception  of  which  they  want  the  spiritual  sense,  as  something 
absolutely  unattainable,  and  they  hold  themselves  far  off  from  it, 
should  it  seek  to  penetrate,  with  its  transforming  power,  their  own 
sphere  of  life.  This  is  especially  true  when  its  influences  are 
brought  to  bear  through  those  whom  they  see  moving  in  earthly 
relations  analogous  to  their  own.  In  the  phrase  "  the  carpenter's 
son,"  the  prevalent  popular  idea  was  embodied,  and  that  impression 
was  wisely  permitted,  because  the  idea  of  the  heavenly  origin  of 
.Jesus  could  be  of  use  only  to  believers.  Mark,  however,  in  the 
parallel  passage,  terms  Jesus  himself  "  the  carpenter,"  inasmuch  as 
the  Saviour,  in  his  earthly  relations,  and  before  his  public  appearance 
as  the  Messiah,  undoubtedly  followed  the  calling  of  Joseph,*  a  cir- 
cumstance which  formed  part  of  his  humiliation.  Christian  anti- 
quity saw,  in  the  facts  thus  recorded,  nothing  offensive,  for  the  life 
of  Jesus  was  in  all  its  relations  unostentatious  and  obscure.  Adopt- 
ing apocryphal  additions,  Justin  tells  us  ravra  yap  rd  renrovLnd  Spya 
KV  avdp^noiq  &v,  dporpa  nal  %vyd,  did  TOVTOW  KOI  rd  rr\^  dinaio- 


*  Mark  docs  not  name  Joseph,  he  only  says  of  Jesus  that  he  was  t>idc  Maptaf,  which 
probably  indicates  that  Joseph  was  already  dead. 


508  LUKE  IV.  21,  22. 


Kal  tvepyi]  (3iov,for  he  laboured  while  among 
men,  in  the  mechanical  employment,  making  ploughs  and  yokes,  in 
these,  both  exhibiting  the  symbols  of  righteousness,  and  inculcating 
an  active  life.  (Dial.  c.  Tryph.  Jud.,  p.  316.  Paris,  1636).  As 
respects  the  ddetyai,  sisters,  here  named,  and  the  ddeX^oi,  brothers, 
who  are  left  nameless,  a  question  may  arise  as  to  whether  they  were 
full  brothers,  or  step-brothers,  or  cousins.  The  second  opinion,  that 
they  were  step-brothers,  is  the  least  supported  by  proof,  having 
nothing  to  rest  on  but  the  tradition  that  Joseph,  at  a  former  period 
of  life,  had  been  married  to  a  woman  named  Salome.  It  may,  there- 
fore, be  at  once  set  aside.  Between  the  two  others,  it  is  hardly 
possible,  owing  to  the  defect  of  proof,  to  decide  with  historic  cer- 
tainty. At  first  sight,  however,  everything  seems  to  conspire  in 
favour  of  the  opinion  that  the  brethren  and  sisters  of  Jesus  were 
really  Mary's  own  children,  and  great  pains  have  recently  been 
taken  to  establish  this  view.*  1.  Their  names  are  given  in  imme- 
diate connexion  with  that  of  the  mother.  2.  We  have  no  ground 
for  supposing  that  Joseph's  marriage  with  Mary  was  a  marriage  only 
in  appearance,  and  Matth.  i.  25,  rather  seems  to  be  a  positive  testi- 
mony on  the  other  side.  (Compare,  however,  the  Comm.  on  the 
passage).  Yet  a  careful  examination  tends  rather  to  discounte- 
nance this,  and  support  the  latter  opinion,  that  the  so-called  brethren 
of  the  Lord  were  cousins  to  Jesus.  For  first  of  all,  the  point  is 
established,  that  none  of  these  four  brethren  of  Jesus  can  have 
belonged  to  the  number  of  the  twelve  apostles,  although  among 
them  there  were  two  who  bore  the  similar  names  of  James  and 
Judas.  For,  according  to  John  vii.  5,  they  did  not  believe  in  Jesus. 
And  at  Acts  i.  14,  they  are  still  markedly  separated  from  the  apos- 
tles, although  they  appear  here  as  believers.f  It  is  expressly  stated, 
however,  respecting  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleophas,  and  sister  to  the 

*  Compare  Stier's  Andeut.  Part  i.  404,  sq.,  and  Clemen  in  Winer's  Zeitschrift  fur  wiss. 
Th.  Part  iii..  p.  329,  sq.  Also  Schneckenburger'a  Beitr.  p.  214,  sq.,  annot.  in  lac.  epist. 
p.  141.  Tubing,  Zeitschr.  1829,  p.  47,  sq.,  1830,  p.  2,  S.  IS,  however,  Joseph  had  been 
the  father  of  the  persons  who  are  termed  Christ's  brethren,  and  if  Mary,  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  had  been  their  mother,  some  of  them  would  surely,  for  once  at  least,  have  been 
styled  "the  son  of  Joseph,"  since  it  was  common  for  the  Jews  to  use  the  name  of  the. 
father  in  denominating  each  other.  In  our  opinion,  the  "  brethren  of  Christ"  mean  at 
least  sometimes  "  sons  of  Cleophas." 

f  Those  who  maintain  the  identity  of  the  apostles  James  and  Judas,  with  the  dietyol 
TOV  icvpiov  of  the  same  name,  appeal  especially  to  the  fact  that  Alpheus,  who  is  mentioned 
as  the  father  of  James  (Matth.  x.  3),  is  the  same  person  with  Clopaa  or  Cleophas,  the  hus- 
band of  Mary,  who  was  sister  to  the  mother  of  Jesus  (John  xix.  25).  According  to  the 
mode  in  which  Greek  names  are  formed  from  the  Hebrew,  it  was  possible  that  leVn  may 
have  been  changed  into  'AA^atof,  by  leaving  out  the  aspirate,  while  by  laying  stress  upon 
it,  the  name  would  be  formed  into  OWTTUC.  It  is  inconceivable,  however,  that  the  same 
writer  would  have  constructed  the  name  in  both  these  Greek  forms,  as  we  find  them  in 
Luke,  who  now  writes  KAeoTrof  (xxiv.  18,  and  now  'A/l^otof  (vi.  15),  [but  not  to  desig- 
nate one  and  the  same  person], 


LUKE  IV.  21-23. 

mother  of  Jesus  (John  xix.  25),  that  she  had  sons,  two  of  whom, 
James  and  Joses,  are  named  to  us  by  Matthew  (xxvii.  56).  Ac- 
cording to  this,  then,  the  two  mothers  who  were  of  the  same  name 
themselves,  must  have  had  sons  whose  names  were  also  alike.  This 
certainly  is  possible,  yet  the  number  of  persons  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment bearing  similar  names  must  in  that  case  be  immoderately  in- 
creased. But  how  John  xix.  26,  can  accord  with  the  opinion  that 
Mary  had  sons  of  her  own,  it  is  impossible  to  see.  Beyond  all  doubt 
she  would  have  been  taken  charge  of  by  them,  and  not  entrusted  to 
John,  who  stood  without  the  circle  of  the  family  connexion.  When 
we  consider  that  according  to  Hebrew  usage  fw  is  the  common  term 
for  cousin  ;  and  that  two  of  the  so-called  brethren  are  demonstrably 
the  Lord's  cousins  ;  the  preponderance  of  proof  unquestionably  in- 
clines to  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  had  no  brethren  of  his  own  after 
the  flesh.*  If  Joseph  died  young,  we  may  suppose  that  Jesus  and 
Mary  dwelt  in  the  house  of  her  sister,  and  that  Jesus  grew  up  along 
with  her  sons  ;  this  circumstance  would  explain  very  simply  how  it 
happens  that  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  should  sometimes  be  named 
along  with  the  son  of  her  sister. 

Luke  iv.  23.  —  Jesus  looked  at  once  •  through  the  hearts  of  the 
men  of  Nazareth,  and  saw  that  they  could  not  through  the  veil 
which  his  lowly  circumstances  threw  around  his  spiritual  glory, 
penetrate  into  his  essential  nature.  He  held  up,  therefore,  before 
them,  as  in  a  glass,  the  likeness  of  themselves,  giving  them  thus 
to  see  that  they  were  incapable  of  knowing  him.  .  He  cites  to 
them  from  the  Old  Testament  examples  to  shew  that  even  in  the 
times  of  their  fathers,  the  heavenly  message  found  no  acceptance 
among  the  immediate  companions  of  the  prophets,  and  that,  unable 
to  unfold  its  power  hi  them,  it  had  taken  refuge  among  the  heathen. 
The  Saviour's  first  words,  however,  intimate  clearly  that  the  inhab- 
itants of  Nazareth  had  desired  to  see  his  miracles,  and  had  remarked 
that  he  might  perform  a  miracle  on  himself,  changing  himself  from 
a  poor  man  into  a  rich  —  from  a  lowly  man  into  a  mighty.  This 
carnal  appetite  for  the  marvellous,  the  Saviour  here,  as  elsewhere, 
repels.  (Compare  on  Matth.  xii.  38,  39,  xvi.  1,  seq.)  He  per- 
forms no  miracle  to  dazzle  by  its  splendour,  but  to  heal,  and  to 
strengthen  the  poor,  the  week,  the  needy.  (Tlavrcog  epeire,  ye  will 
assuredly  say  to  me.  The  word  -ndvru^  often  occurs  in  Luke  [Acts 
xviii.  21  ;  xxi.  22  ;  xxviii.  4].  Respecting  Trapa/fo/b?,  see  on  Matth. 


*  The  opinion  that  Joseph  and  Mary  had  children  born  to  them,  I  am  further  led  to 
reject,  on  the  ground  that,  according  to  the  Old  Testament  predictions,  it  is  difficult  to 
conceive  of  any  continuation  of  the  family  of  David  in  the  line  from  which  the  Messiah 
•was  to  come  forth.  "We  conceive  of  it  as  a  fitting  thing  that  hi  Jesus,  springing  as  the 
everlasting  Ruler  from  the  house  of  David,  the  line  itself  should  close.  What  we  read  of 
David's  descendants  at  a  future  period  (compare  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  in.  20)  refers  beyond  doubt 
to  the  children  of  some  collateral  line. 


510  LUKE  IV.  23,  24. 

xiii.  1.     Here  it   denotes  like   Vtg»   a  proverb.)     The  meaning  of 
larpe,  Oepdrrevaov  aeavrov,  Physician,  heal  thyself,  is  simply  this — 
Shew  your  skill  on  yourself ;  are  you  great' — do  you  allege  that  as  a 
Saviour  you  can  give  deliverance  ?  then  deliver  yourself  from  pov- 
erty.    Thus  did  the  blinded   people  mock  his  love  when  on  the 
cioss  (Matth.  xxvii.  42),  and  thus  does  selfishness  ever  manifest 
itself  in  the  heart  that  is  alienated  from  God.     Pure  unselfish  love, 
however,  gives  rather  than  takes  (Acts  xx.  35),  becomes  poor  in 
order  to  make  others  rich  (2  Cor.  viii.  9).    Wetstein  on  the  passage, 
cites,  moreover,  from  the  Kabbins  proverbs  of  the  same  import :  for 
example,  from  Tanchuma  on  G-enes.  p.  61,  medice,  sana  claudica- 
tionem  tuam.     In  the  things  of  this  world,  the  idea  is  in  some 
respects  true,  in  the  kingdom  of  grace  it  is  false.     The  concluding 
words  of  the  verse  shew  further  with  what  latitude  the  general  for- 
mula of  transition,  at  Luke  iv.  14,  must  be  taken.     Jesus  had, 
after  his   temptation,  been   to  Capernaum,  and   there  performed 
miracles  (dg  is  the  correct  reading,  and  means  in  behalf  of,  for  the 
benefit  of  Capernaum),  the  report  of  which  had  reached  Nazareth. 
This  proves  that  even  in  Luke  the  chronology  is  hard  to  trace,  and 
that  we  cannot  even  in  his  case  conclude  from  the  immediate  collo- 
cation of  events,  that  they  followed  each  other  directly  in  point  of 
time.     In  the  words  TTOITJOOV  not  ude,  do  also  here,  the  pride  and 
arrogance  of  the  natural  man  are  most  plainly  explained.     They 
demand  miracles,  as  though  they  had,  from  being  his  countrymen,  a 
special  right  to  them.     Yet  do  they  mock  him  who  claims  to  be 
more  than  they,  disparaging  themselves  in  their  self-contradictory 
pride.     Meanwhile  they  cannot  subdue  the  impression  which  his 
divine  presence  had  made  on  them,  for  they  are  astonished.  (V.  22.) 
Ver.  24. — This  verse  forms,  in  the  account  of  Luke,  the  climax 
of  the  narrative.     With  Matthew  and  Mark  it  attaches  itself  inci- 
dentally to  the   narrative,  which   is   regarded   under  an   entirely 
different   aspect.      Most   appropriately   does   Luke   introduce   this 
occurrence  at  the  outset  of  Christ's  ministry,  and  narrate  it  with 
such  care,  for  the  reception  he  met  with  when  commencing  his  offi- 
cial labours  in  his  native  town,  mirrored  forth  the  peculiar  expe- 
rience of  his  whole  subsequent  career.     Matthew  and  Mark  further 
add  :  the  prophet  is  of  no  esteem  "  in  his  own  house,  and  among 
his  own  kindred."     By  these  words  the  picture  is  compressed  within 
narrower   limits,  but  its  leading   outlines   remain   the  same.     As 
Christ's  brethren  believed  not  (John  vii.  5),  so  neither  did  the  in- 
habitants of  Nazareth  believe,  and  like  the  latter,  so  the  whole 
nation  disbelieved  ;  "  he  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received 
him  not."     (John  i.  11.)     The  kingdom  of  God  passed  over  to  the 
heathen,  and  to  them  even  Luke  himself  went  as  a  preacher.     As, 
however,  after  the  resurrection,  the  brethren  of  Christ  were  among 


LUKE  IV.  24-30.  511 

the  believers  (Acts  i.  14),  so  also  shall  Israel  turn  to  the  Lord,  at  the 
time  of  the  great  resurrection  (Rom.  xi.  25.)  That  which  happened, 
however,  to  Christ  personally,  he  applies  to  all  prophets,  ovdelg 
TrpofirjTTjs  deKTog  eariv  iv  TTJ  rrarpi6c  avrov,  no  prophet  is  accepted,  etc. 
For  in  the  case  of  every  prophet,  the  divine  element  in  him  comes 
into  conflict  with  sin  in  his  contemporaries,  and  the  closer  their 
relation  in  the  flesh,  the  more  incomprehensible  to  the  worldly  man 
is  their  wide  separation  in  the  spirit.  The  spectacle  of  the  prophet 
entangled  in  the  same  irritating  cares  of  daily  life  that  are  common 
to  all  his  fellows,  rendered  it  more  difficult  under  this  lowly  guise, 
to  recognise  his  heavenly  character. 

Ver.  25-27. — The  examples  by  which  the  Lord  illustrates  the 
working  of  this  divine  power,  passing  by  those  who  are  near  and 
acting  on  those  at  a  distance,  are  taken  from  1  Kings  xviii.  1,  seq., 
xvii.  12,  seq.  The  three  years  and  six  months  are  also  given  at 
James  v.  17,  but,  according  to  1  Kings  xviii.  1,  the  time  seems 
merely  to  have  extended  over  the  second,  and  into  the  third  year. 
If,  however,  we  compute  it,  not  from  the  coming  of  the  rain,  but 
from  the  flight  of  Elijah,  1  Kings  xvii.  9,  as  Benson  has  proposed, 
the  difficulty  disappears.  I^dpe-rrra  =  ns"^  a  small  town  betwixt 
Tyre  and  Sidon.  The  whole  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  fact,  that 
heathens  instead  of  Israelites  saw  the  miracles  of  the  prophet. 

Ver.  28,  29.— These  parallel  cases  from  among  the  heathen, 
wounded  the  vanity  of  the  Nazarenes;  they  drove  out  their  prophet, 
and  so  made  the  words  of  Jesus  true.  Nay,  they  even  intended  to 
take  his  life,  as  they  wished  to  cast  him  down  from  the  hill  on  which 
their  town  was  built.  (Compare  on  Matth.  ii.  23.)  ('OQpvg,  eye-brow, 
steep  precipice.  Hesych.  ra  in^rj^d  KOI  vrrepKeinsva  ^wpta.) 

Ver.  30. — The  unbelieving,  miracle-seeking  Nazarenes,  met,  in 
his  escape,  with  a  proof  of  his  wonder-working  power,  of  which,  how- 
ever, they  took  no  heed. — AteAflwv  did  \ikaov  avr&v  K-rropevero,  passing 
through  their  midst,  he  went  aivay,  relates  the  Evangelist.  These 
words  in  themselves  certainly  do  not  indicate  anything  miraculous  ; 
some  fortunate  accident  might  have  made  it  possible  for  an  indi- 
vidual to  escape  from  the  excited  population  of  a  whole  city.  But 
he  who  acknowledges  no  mere  accident,  and  least  of  all  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Son  of  God  ;  he  who  enquires  exegetically  into  the  view 
of  the  writer,  must  be  forced  to  confess  the  idea  here  expressed  to  be 
this  :  Jesus  departed  through  the  midst  of  them  without  restraint 
or  hindrance,  because  he  was  JESUS;  his  divine  power  held  their 
limbs  and  senses  bound.  No  one  could  take  from  him  his  life,  unless 
when  he  freely  gave  it.  (John  x.  18.)  In  the  same  way  also  is  the 
narrative  at  John  viii.  59  to  be  understood. 

Matth.  (xiii.  58)  and  Mark  (vi.  5)  remark  in  conclusion,  that 
Jesus  performed  few  miracles  in  Nazareth.  According  to  the  more 


512  LUKE  IV.  30. 

minute  account  of  Mark,  he  healed  a  few  sick  persons  by  laying  his 
hands  on  them.  Probably  this  was  before,  his  address  in  the  syna- 
gogue, for  after  it  the  scene  of  uproar  immediately  broke  forth. 
We  need  not  suppose  that  this  contradicts  Luke  iv.  23,  if  we 
assume  that  these  cures  had  taken  place  in  quiet  family  circles, 
for  surely  the  good  seed  was  not  wholly  wanting  even  in  unbeliev- 
ing Nazareth.  The  expression,  however,  employed  by  Mark,  is 
remarkable,  ^Qav^ia^e  did  rrjv  d-moriav  avrtiv,  he  marvelled  at  their 
unbelief  (a  painful  contrast  with  Matthew  viii.  10,  where  Jesus 
wonders  at  faith),  and  OVK  rjdvvaro  £itei  ovfeptav  dvvaftiv  -rro^aai, 
he  was  not  able  to  do  there  any  mighty  work.  These  words  strik- 
ingly explain  the  relation  of  faith  to  the  miraculous  power  of 
Christ.  Faith  appears  here  once  more  (compare  on  Matthew  viii. 
1),  as  a  condition  indispensable  to  the  manifestation  of  that  mira- 
culous power,  which,  as  the  positive  pole  requires  the  negative, 
demanded  susceptibility  of  mind  before  it  could  impart  its  gifts. 
The  OVK  jjdvvaro,  he  could  not,  is  therefore  to  be  taken  quite  lite- 
rally, as  denoting  an  internal  impossibility — obviously  not  a  physical, 
but  a  divine,  a  moral  impossibility.  As  God  can  save  no  impeni- 
tent sinner,  none,  who  refuses  humbly  to  mourn  over  his  guilt,  so 
Jesus  cannot  heal  where  faith  is  wanting.  Hence  it  appears  that 
the  object  of  the  miracles  is  not  to  produce  faith  :  they  presuppose 
faith  as  existing,  but  where  it  already  is  they  can  purify  and  con- 
firm it,  and  at  the  same  time  awaken  the  mind  to  correct  knowledge. 
For,  clearness  of  understanding  is  not  necessarily  united  with  depth 
and  liveliness  of  faith.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  views  of  that  hero- 
ine of  faith,  the  Canaanitish  woman  (Matthew  xv.  22),  were  very 
clear,  but  her  heart  burned  with  love,  and  her  whole  soul  was 
susceptible  to  heavenly  influences.  Hence  she  was  enabled  to 
compel  (if  I  may  so  speak),  the  reluctant  Saviour  to  perform  a 
miracle.  (Compare  on  Matthew,  xv.  28.)  Faith,  therefore,  in  all 
stages  of  its  development,  proceeds  from  the  heart ;  its  resting-place 
is  in  the  immediate  sphere  of  the  inner  life ;  it .  is  receptive  love,  as 
grace  is  communicative  love.  But  the  divine  principle  (grace), 
which  unites  itself  to  faith,  is  to  pervade  the  powers  of  knowledge 
and  understanding,  nay,  indeed  the  whole  man,  in  all  his  faculties. 
By  knowledge,  however,  no  man  attains  to  faith,  nor  shall  any  be 
saved  by  mere  intelligence  ;  but  a  believing  heart  may  well  secure 
salvation,  even  amidst  great  obscurity  in  our  perceptions  of  truth. 
(Compare  Proverbs  iv.  23.) 


MATTHEW  XIV.  1,  2.  513 

§  24.  THE  BAPTIST'S  DEATH. 

(Matth.  xiv.  1-12;  Mark  vL  14-29.     Luke  iii.  19,  20;  ix.  7-9.) 

•  The  immediately  following  chapters  in  Matthew  (xiv. — xvii.)  do 
not  share  the  character  of  the  preceding  ;  no  thread  can  be  traced 
guiding  the  arrangement  of  their  several  portions.  Not  till  the 
17th  chapter,  does  the  distinctive  peculiarity  of  Matthew,  that, 
namely,  of  combining  fragments  of  various  discourses,  again  appear. 
The  chapters  which  here  immediately  follow,  I  am  inclined  to  regard 
as  supplements  of-  a  historic  kind  to  the  preceding  sections  (Rubri- 
keri).  Although  the  unchronological  character  of  Matthew  still 
remains,  yet  in  the  frequent  mention  made  of  Christ's  death  we  ob- 
serve a  gradual  drawing  near  to  the  later  period.  The  first  incident 
in  chapter  xiv.,  the  account  of  the  Baptist's  death,  is  obviously  of  a 
supplementary  character — the  fact  of  his  execution  is  supposed  to 
be  long  past.  Luke  (iii.  19,  20)  had  anticipated  it.  The  mention 
of  the  views  current  regarding  Christ,  points,  however,  to  a  period 
when  the  reports  respecting  him  had  already  obtained  wide  cir- 
culation, and  the  acquaintance  of  the  disciples  with  their  na- 
ture is  easily  explained,  if  we  consider  that  their  mission  must 
have  brought  them  into  contact  with  persons  of  various  kinds. 
From  this  point  down  to  the  end  of  this  section,  the  relation  of 
Mark  to  Matthew  is  peculiar.  He  follows  him  closely  and  through- 
out, only  in  two  cases  (vii.  32-37  ;  viii.  22-26),  inserting  short  nar- 
ratives of  cures  which  Matthew  does  not  give.  The  account  Mat- 
thew xvii.  24-27,  of  the  coin  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish,  he  omits. 
Mark's  peculiar  style  of  narrative  remains  unchanged  in  these  por- 
tions ;  he  presents  far  more  graphically  than  Matthew  the  details 
of  his  narratives,  but  dwells  exclusively  on  their  outward  features. 

Ver.  1. — The  expression  tv  iiteivw  TW  «ajp<3,  at  that  time,  is  here 
used  in  all  its  vagueness,  inasmuch  as  the  preceding  occurrence  hap- 
pened at  the  commencement  of  the  Lord's  ministry,  while  the 
account  of  Herod  which  follows  belongs  to  a  later  period.  (Con- 
cerning Herod  [Antipas]  and  rerpap^f,  compare  on  Matthew  ii.  22  ; 
Luke  iii.  1.)  The  frivolous  worldling  seems  at  first  to  have  given 
himself  little  trouble  about  Jesus  :  he  never  heard  of  him  till  his 
fame  had  been  widely  spread. 

Ver.  2. — Matthew  merely  records  the  impression  which  the  in- 
formation about  Christ  made  on  the  tetrarch  ;  Mark  and  Luke  state, 
in  addition,  the  various  rumours  respecting  him  which  were  in  cir- 
culation among  the  people.  Subsequently  they  both  repeat  them 
on  an  occasion  when  Matthew  also  gives  them  (xvi.  14),  and  we 

VOL.  I.— 33 


514  MATTHEW  XIV.  2-5. 

defer  therefore  the  fuller  consideration  of  them  to  Matthew  xvi.  14. 
As  to  Herod,  Mark,  agreeing  with  Matthew,  relates  that  he  believed 
Jesus  to  have  been  John  raised  from  the  dead.  He  expresses  this 
opinion  directly  to  those  about  him.  (Tlalg  =  dovkog ,  na.5>).  Accord- 
ing to  Luke,  it  was  the  mere  report  of  this  which  disturbed  him 
((JiT/Troptt,  Luke  ix.  7),  yet  his  wish  to  see  Jesus  (Luke  ix.  9), 
would  rather  lead  us  to  the  opposite  conclusion,  namely,  that  he 
himself  disbelieved  the  report  of  John's  resurrection.  (Compare 
Luke  xxiii.  8.)  This  seeming  contradiction  disappears,  however, 
when  we  consider  how  completely  this  worldly  man  must  have  been 
involved  in  darkness.  At  the  first  hearing  of  the  report  his  heart 
would  be  shaken  with  fear,  for  conscience  would  testify  that  from  a 
desire  to  please  others  and  against  his  better  knowledge  (see  Mark 
vi.  26),  he  had  caused  the  Baptist  to  be  murdered.  A  mind  so 
superficial,  however,  would  soon  pacify  itself  and  become  con- 
vinced of  the  improbability  of  the  whole  matter.  His  Sadduceeism 
would  come  to  his  aid  (see  on  Markviii.  15,  compared  with  Matthew 
xvi.  6),  and  put  to  flight  every  idea  of  a  probable  existence  beyond 
the  grave.  Consistency  in  the  views  of  such  sensualists  is  not  to  be 
looked  for  ;  they  deny  the  reality  of  divine  things,  yet  amidst  their 
very  denial  their  heart  quakes  with  the  secret  belief  of  them.  With 
metempsychosis  we  have  here  nothing  to  do,  for  it  is  clear  they  did 
not  believe  that  John's  soul  had  passed  into  another  body,  but  that 
he  was  himself  personally  risen  from  the  dead.  Not  even  at  John 
ix.  3,  are  we  to  look  for  traces  of  a  belief  in  metempsychosis,  or  the 
pre-existence  of  souls,  during  the  times  of  the  apostles.  (Compare 
the  Comment,  on  that  passage.) 

Ver.  3,  4. — The  aorists  are,  in  the  connexion,  clearly  to  be  un- 
derstood as  equivalent  to  the  pluperfect  tense.  (Compare  Winer's 
Grain.,  p.  251.)  The  place  of  John's  imprisonment  was,  according 
to  Josephus  (Antiq.  xviii.  5,  2),  the  fortress  of  Machaerus.  The 
notorious  Herodias,  with  whom  Antipas  lived  in  incestuous  connex- 
ion, was  the  daughter  of  Aristobulus,  a  son  of  Herod  the  Great. 
The  latter  married  her  to  his  son  Philip  (who  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  Philip  the  Tetrarch,  see  on  Matthew  ii.  22),  who  was 
disinherited  by  his  father,  and  lived  subsequently  merely  as  a  private 
individual.  For  this  reason,  his  wife,  Herodias,  preferred  the  con- 
nexion with  the  tetrarch,  Antipas,  that  she  might  become  a  reign- 
ing princess.  Antipas  discarded  in  her  favour,  his  former  wife,  the 
daughter  of  Aretas,  the  Arabian  prince.  (Compare  Josephus,  Antiq. 
xviii.  5,  1.)  John,  the  stern  preacher  of  repentance,  had  dared  to 
rebuke  this  scandalous  union,  and  drawn  upon  himself  the  unmiti- 
gated hatred  of  Herodias.  In  Antipas  himself,  it  would  appear, 
there  often  arose  feelings  of  a  better  nature.  (Mark  vi.  20.) 

Ver.  5. — Mark  paints  (ver.  20)  Herod  in  more  favourable  colours, 


MATTHEW  XIV.  5-10.  515 

so  that  it  is  Herodias  who  appears  as  the  special  enemy  of  John. 
('Eve^w,  v.  19,  to  be  angry,  in  anger  to  lay  snares  for  ;  Luke  xi.  53.) 
Matthew,  however,  ascribes  to  Herod  the  intention  of  putting  John 
to  death,  only,  he  remarks,  that  he  feared  the  people.  Mark's  lan- 
guage, "  knowing  him  to  be  a  righteous  and  holy  man,"  seems  to 
indicate  that  his  conscience  had  been  roused,  and  this  is  confirmed  by 
what  follows.  The  eager  hearing  of  John  refers  not  to  the  time  of 
his  imprisonment,  during  which  any  interview  between  the  prince 
and  the  Baptist  is  hardly  conceivable,  but  to  an  earlier  period, 
before  his  incarceration.  At  such  a  conference  John  might  well  have 
called  his  attention  to  the  unlawfulness  of  his  union  with  Herodias, 
as  well  as  to  other  criminal  acts.  (Compare  Luke  iii.  19;  'Hpc5<%- 
vn'  'ludvvov  nepl  'Hpwdmdof  —  not  mpl  Trdvruv  wv  enoirjae 


Ver.  6.  —  Tsveoia  may  be  understood  of  his  birth-day,  or  of  the 
commencement  of  his  reign.  Even  so  early  as  Joseph's  time,  the 
Pharaohs  kept  the  ^pa  yevsaeus,  (Genesis  xl.  20.)  Mark  employs 
the  general  expression  rjfiepa  evicaipog  =  sto  &v»  festive  day,  and 
describes  the  guests  at  the  feast.  The  expression  neytardvEg,  "lords," 
seems  of  Persian  origin.  JosepJius  (Antiq.,  ix.  3,  2)  ranges  them 
along  with  the  satraps.  The  LXX.  use  the  word  among  others  for 
•jn-a-j  Daniel  v.  1.  In  the  New  Testament  it  occurs  again  only  at 
Rev.  vi.  15;  xviii.  23.  Here  it  seems  to  denote  the  highest  civil 
officers  at  the  court,  as  %iAidp%oi  does  tjie  highest  military  officers. 
The  rrpwrot  rrjg  Takikaiag,  first  men  of  Galilee,  would,  in  that  case, 
mean  the  wealthiest  men  of  the  province.  We  are  doubtless  to  un- 
derstand the  dancing  of  the  daughter  of  Herodias  to  have  been  the 
mimic  dance,  but  not  necessarily  unchaste.  On  the  part  of  his  step- 
daughter (Salome  was  her  name)  this  is  hardly  conceivable. 

Ver.  7.  —  The  verb  Trpo(3il3d&iv  occurs  at  Acts  xix.  33,  in  its  most 
immediate  sense  of  to  draw  forth,  to  lead  out;  figuratively,  it  means 
to  instruct  any  one,  to  train  for  some  purpose.  At  Exodus  xxxv.  34, 
it  stands  for  n-:n.  The  wicked  mother  directed  the  maiden  to  John 
the  Baptist,  and  she  asked  for  his  head.  The  weak  Antipas  granted 
it,  though  with  a  reluctant  mind.  ('E£  avrfjg  sc.  &pa<;,  Mark  vi.  25.) 

Ver.  9,  10.  —  The  weak  fear  of  man  extracted  from  the  tetrarch 
the  order  for  the  beheading  ;  he  was  ashamed  before  the  assembly 
to  recal  his  too  hasty  promise.  The  state  of  Pilate's  mind  was 
similar  when  the  demand  was  made  that  he  should  suffer  Jesus  to 
be  led  forth  to  death  —  only  he  was  overcome  by  fear,  Antipas  by 
shame.  Mark  vi.  27  uses  the  Latin  name  a-neaovXar^p,  by  which 
the  executioner  was  commonly  designated.  The  mode  of  writing 
the  word  varies  between  spiculator  (from  spiculum,  a  spear  with 
which  they  were  armed),  and  speculator  —  the  former  seems  pre- 
ferable. 


516  MATTHEW  XIV.  11-13. 

Ver.  11,  12. — As  the  execution  seems  to  have  been  so  soon 
carried  into  effect,  the  feast  must  have  been  held  in  the  castle  of 
Machaerus  itself,  or  in  the  neighbourhood.  The  faithful  disciples 
buried  the  body  (Mark  vi.  29,  has  Tirana)  of  their  master  as  their 
last  token  of  respect. 


§  25.  FEEDING  OP  THE  FIVE  THOUSAND. 

(Matth.  xiv.  13-21 ;  Mark  vL  30-44 ;  Luke  ix.  10-17 ;  John  vL  1-15.) 

The  date  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  fixed  with  cer- 
tainty by  John  vi.  4  (see  on  the  explanation  of  TJV  6e  tyyvg  TO  7rao%a 
the  Comment,  on  the  passage).  The  connecting  of  Christ's  retire- 
ment into  the  desert,  with  his  receiving  the  news  of  John's  death, 
is  extremely  simple  and  probable.  As  his  hour  was  not  yet  come, 
he  went  into  retirement,  partly  that  he  might  avoid  all  hostile 
machinations,  partly  that  he  might  in  prayer  to  God  and  converse 
with  his  disciples,  meditate  on,  and  make  known  those  mighty  events 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  which  were  gradually  approaching.  (Com- 
pare on  Mark  i.  35.)  As  the  people  crowd  thither  after  him,  the 
scene  of  the  subsequent  feeding  of  the  multitude  is  ushered  in. 

Ver.  13. — Matthew  states  in  general  'Irjaovg  dve^6p7]asv  tneWev  el$ 
lpr\\i.w^  Jesus  retired  thence  into  a  desert,  leaving  undetermined  what 
the  thence  refers  to,  for  his  last  account  of  Jesus  (Matth.  xiii.  53- 
58)  mentions  no  locality.  But  the  expression  "  in  a  ship"  points 
to  his  passing  over  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  sea  of  Gennesareth, 
an  inference  which  John  vi.  1,  and  Luke  ix.  10,  confirm.*  The 
latter  mentions  Bethsaida.  This  town,  however,  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  city  of  the  apostles  (John  i.  44),  which  lay  on  the 
western  shore  of  the  sea.  This  second  Bethsaida  was  situated  on 
the  eastern  bank,  near  where  the  Jordan  flows  into  the  lake.  At 
first  it  was  a  village,  but  Philip  the  tetrarch  raised  it  to  the  rank  of 
a  city,  and  named  it  Julias.  (Josephiis,  Antiq.,  xviii.  3 ;  Wars  of  the 
Jews,  ii.  13  ;  compare  Von  Raumer's  Palest.,  p.  100).  According  to 
Mark  (ver.  31),  this  retirement  was  intended  also  for  the  disciples, 
that  they  might  rest  from  the  labours  (ava-naveo6e  6/ltyov)  occasioned 
by  the  pressure  of  the  people.  They  had  even  been  prevented 
from  taking  their  necessary  food.  Eager,  however,  for  help  (though 
only  outward  help,  immediately),  the  people  hastened  after  them 
into  the  uncultivated  region  whither  our  Lord  had  withdrawn,  and 

*  De  Wette  (on  Luke  ix.  10)  thinks  that  Luke  places  this  feeding  in  a  different  local- 
ity from  Matthew  and  Mark ;  that  he  knows  nothing  of  a  passage  across  the  sea,  and 
refers  to  the  Bethsaida  on  the  western  shore.  But  this  is  sufficiently  disproved  by  the 
single  circumstance  that  there  was  no  desert  near  the  western  Bethsaida :  it  was  sur- 
rounded by  the  most  fruitful  land. 


MATTHEW  XIV   13-17.  517 


he  had  compassion  on  them.  (See  respecting  o-nXayxvi&odaL  on 
Luke  i.  78.)  He  taught,  therefore  (Luke  and  Mark),  and  afterwards 
performed  cures  (Matthew).  On  the  words  (especially  as  given  by 
Mark),  compare  the  passage  Matth.  ix.  36.  They  contain  allusions 
to  Old  Testament  passages,  such  as  Numbers  xxvii.  17  ;  Isaiah  liii. 
6.  Luke  (ix.  11)  mentions  as  the  subject  of  his  teaching,  the 
Baoikeia  rov  Beov,  kingdom  of  God,  under  which  expression  is  here 
comprehended,  in  an  indeterminate  and  general  way,  that  more 
exalted  heavenly  life  which  Christ  was  come  to  render  the  dominant 
principle  on  earth.  (Compare  on  Matth.  iii.  2.) 

Ver.  15,  16.  —  In  narrating  the  course  of  the  miracle,  John  de- 
viates from  the  synoptical  Gospels.  He  states  that  the  Saviour  put 
to  Philip  the  question,  how  shall  we  buy  bread  for  so  many  ;  while 
the  synoptical  writers  tell  us  that  the  apostles  had  applied  to  Jesus 
to  dismiss  the  people,  that  they  might  disperse  themselves  and  find 
provisions  in  the  villages  that  lay  immediately  around.  It  is  easy, 
however,  to  reconcile  both  accounts.  As  the  day  was  now  far  gone 
(Mark  vi.  35,  wpa  -rroAA^,  like  the  expression  r//jepa  TroAAv?,  in  the  LXX. 
at  Genesis  xxix.  7),  some  of  the  disciples  enquired  of  Jesus  as  to  the 
time  when  the  people  would  be  dismissed.  John  mentions  another 
circumstance  occurring,  either  before  or  after  the  inquiry  of  the  dis- 
ciples, the  question,  namely,  put  by  Jesus  to  Philip.  Even  though, 
as  Bengel  supposes,  the  charge  of  providing  food  had  been  entrusted 
to  him,  the  special  object  in  putting  the  question  was  certainly  a 
moral  one.  Philip  must  have  his  mind  awakened  (John  vi.  6,  eJleyev 
6  'iTjaovg  treipdfav  avrov,  Jesus  spoke  proving  him),  that  he  might  be 
able  to  apprehend  aright  the  approaching  miracle.  Philip,  how- 
ever, appears  here  as  at  John  xiv.  8,  unable  to  free  himself  from  his 
earthly  modes  of  conception  ;  he  refers  to  the  sum  of  money  that 
would  be  required  for  feeding  them.  (200  denarii  =  40  rix  dollars. 
This  sum  is  given  also  by  Mark  vi.  37.) 

Ver.  17.  —  Another  equally  immaterial  difference  in  the  narra- 
tive, is  John's  expressly  naming  Andrew  (vi.  8)  as  the  person  who 
mentioned  the  boy  with  the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes  (o^dpiov 
properly  means  merely  by-meat,*  any  thing  eaten  with  bread  ;  the 
other  Evangelists  define  it  by  lx,6veg,  fishes),  while  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke  make  the  apostles  say  that  there  was  no  food  whatever  at 
hand.  These  last  Evangelists  have  looked  on  Andrew  as  speaking 
for  all  the  apostles,  and  expressing  their  mind.  The  expression 
•ncuddpiov  KV,  one  little  boy  (the  "v  is  not  to  be  taken  as  having  the 
force  of  the  indefinite  article,  but  as  distinctly  intimating  that  none 
else  besides  this  boy  had  brought  food  with  them),  forbids  our  sup- 
posing that  the  five  loaves  and  two  fishes  were  merely  the  disciples' 

*  According  to  lexicographera,  however,  oijiupiov  was,  at  a  later  period,  used  as  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  i^jdvSiov. 


518  MATTHEW  XIV.  17-21. 

own  supply  of  food.  John  immediately  places,  in  direct  contrast, 
the  whole  number  present  (ravra  ri  KOTLV  dc;  roaovrovf),  with  the 
whole  supply  of  provisions.  (The  assigning  of  the  number  at  5000 
is  alike  in  all  the  narratives,  only  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  men- 
tion it  till  the  conclusion.  Matthew  remarks,  enhancing  it  still 
more,  besides  women  and  children.  The  mode  of  arranging  them 
at  the  meal  greatly  facilitated  the  reckoning.  The  agreement 
in  the  numbers,  as  well  of  those  who  were  fed,  as  of  the  provisions 
set  before  them,  is  not  to  be  overlooked.  It  is  a  strong  testimony 
to  the  truth  of  the  narrative  ;  later  tradition  would  have  corrupted 
the  numbers.) 

Ver.  18,  19. — The  Saviour  causes  the  crowd  to  be  ranged  in 
regular  order,  and  proceeds  to  divide  the  small  supply  of  food.  (The 
Bprjfj,o^}  where  the  Saviour  was  at  this  time,  was  grassy  pasture 
ground,  without  towns  or  villages.  In  the  same  way  is-fla  is  used 
to  denote  pasturage.  We  are  not  therefore  to  conceive  of  any 
thing  like  sandy  wastes,  but  rather  of  steppes.  Lvfirrootov  denotes 
here  the  persons  who  partake  of  a  meal  together,  like  our  German 
word  Gesellschaft,  a  company.  Luke  uses  instead,  the  term  itXiaiai, 
the  reclining  or  sitting  together  at  food,  table-parties;  each  com- 
pany of  fifty  is  conceived  as  forming  a  party  by  itself.  The  repeti- 
tion of  the  word  denotes,  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  the  separate 
distribution,  instead  of  the  Greek  dvd.  In  graphic  language,  from 
a  vivid  conception  of  the  scene,  Mark  styles  the  separate  companies 
-rrpaoiai,  defined  and  separate  spaces,  e.  g.,  garden-beds,  as  in  Homer. 
He  adds,  that  some  of  these  parties  consisted  of  100,  others  of  50, 
nay,  he  does  not  forget  to  notice  the  freshness  of  the  grass,  (tm 
#/Uopa>  %6pTG) — ^Awpof  =  pn?  in  the  LXX.)  These  traits  originate 
wholly  in  his  peculiar  mode  of  representation  which  deals  with 
events  chiefly  in  their  external  features.  In  detailing  the  division 
itself,  Mark  (41)  adds  expressly,  KOI  rov$  dvo  l^Qva^  tyKpiae  nan,  and 
he  divided  the  two  fishes  among  them  all.  These,  words  clearly  inti- 
mate the  view  of  the  narrator,  that  the  two  fishes  were  the  object 
subdivided  among  all  ;  Jesus  had  only  this  small  supply  for  satisfy- 
ing the  multitude.  The  words  of  John,  oaov  rjdeXov,  as  much  as 
they  would  (vi.  11),  exclude  all  idea  of  a  merely  seeming  satisfaction 
of  their  wants  ;  every  one  partook  as  much  as  he  desired ;  that  was 
the  standard  which,  on  this  occasion,  regulated  the  supply. 

Ver.  20,  21. — The  command  to  gather  up  the  fragments  admit- 
ted of  being  carried  into  execution,  for  our  Lord  was  standing  in 
one  fixed  place  when  he  broke  the  bread  and  the  fishes  (fragments 
of  which  latter,  the  minute  and  accurate  Mark  informs  us  were  also 
collected),  at  which  point  they  would  naturally  collect  themselves, 
and  means  might  also  be  taken  beforehand  for  keeping  them  clean. 
The  twelve  baskets  (in  which  all  the  four  Evangelists  are  agreed), 


MATTHEW  XIV.  21.  519 

shew  that  the  fragments  that  remained  over  were  of  greater  amount 
than  the  original  loaves.  Probably  each  apostle  took  a  basket 
to  complete  the  gathering  of  the  fragments ;  hence  the  twelve. 
This  union  of  careful  savingness  with  creative  power  is  a  feature  so 
peculiar,  that  it  impresses,  beyond  all  mistake,  a  heavenly  charac- 
ter on  the  narrative.  Such  things  are  not  invented !  Nature,  that 
mirror  of  divine  perfections,  places  before  our  eyes  the  same  combi- 
nation of  boundless  munificence,  and  of  truest  frugality  in  imparting 
her  benefits. 

The  Evangelists  close  their  narratives  with  nothing  certainly 
like  exclamations  or  expressions  of  surprise — John  only  remarking 
what  an  impression  the  incident  had  made  on  the  people.  They 
concluded  from  it  that  Jesus  was  the  promised  prophet,  and  wished 
to  make  him  by  force  the  sovereign  of  their  worldly  kingdom. 
Whether  such  an  ebullition  is  conceivable,  if  the  multitude  (a  cara- 
van returning  from  a  festival,  as  is  conjectured)  had  satisfied  them- 
selves with  the  provision  which  themselves  had  made  for  the  journey, 
and  in  the  most  courteous  way,  left  untouched  the  small  supply  of 
food  placed  before  them  by  the  apostles,  we  leave  intelligent  and 
believing  readers  to  infer  for  themselves. 

The  fact  itself  thus  recorded  obviously  belongs  to  that  class  of 
Christ's  miracles  which  stand  related  to  nature.  In  the  other,  and 
first  class  of  miracles,  there  is,  for  the  Christian  mind,  this  facility 
towards  the  understanding  of  them,  that  we  have,  in  the  faith  of 
the  individual  who  (for  example  in  the  case  of  a  cure)  is  the  object 
of  the  miracle,  a  channel  for  the  communication  of  the  wondrous 
power  and  its  effectual  operation.  But  in  cases  where  physical 
nature  is  seen  as  a  simply  passive  object,  the  miracle  easily  assumes 
the  appearance  of  being  magical.  The  best  way  of  escaping  from 
this  false  impression  is,  never  to  view  those  miracles  which  refer  to 
the  natural  world  dissociated  from  the  moral  world,  but  as  living  in 
union  with  it.  The  mere  increase  of  food  is  not  the  point  on  which 
stress  is  here  to  be  laid,  but  its  increase  for  persons  who  were  in  a 
certain  state  of  mind.  It  is  when  such  miracles  are  thus  conjoined 
with  the  wants  of  human  nature,  as  these  were  manifested  in  the 
individuals  actually  present,  that  they  appear  in  their  true  character. 
As  the  Lord,  in  general,  performed  no  cure  save  where  he  found 
faith,  so  he  generally  bestowed  no  food  save  where  he  found  spiritual 
hunger.*  As  regards  the  fact  itself,  we  pay  no  attention  to  those 
representations,  which,  in  contradiction  to  the  true  exegesis,  explain 
away  all  that  is  miraculous  ;f  but  just  as  little  ought  we  to  tolerate 

*  It  is  repugnant  to  common  sense  when,  in  reply  to  this,  Strauss  asks  (vol.  ii.,  p. 
206),  what  was  done  then  with  unbelievers  ?  The  supposition  is,  that  where  Christ  per- 
formed a  miracle  all  were  believers. 

f  Pfeiininger  says  of  it :  "  What  usually  takes  place  in  three-quarters  of  a  year  be- 


520  MATTHEW  XIV.  20,  21. 

any  views  of  it  which  are  anti-natural.  This,  however,  must  be 
done,  if  we  suppose  the  material  to  have  been  increased  without  a 
real  interposition  of  Divine  power.  Kather  let  us  believe  that  the 
same  power  which  flowed  forth  from  Jesus  to  heal  the  sick,  here 
produced,  in  obedience  to  his  will,  another  physical  effect.  There 
it  appears  rather  as  setting  in  order,  as  restorative — here  rather  as 
creative.*  The  correct  view  of  the  matter  then  is  undoubtedly  this, 
that  under  the  hands  of  the  Saviour,  and  by  his  Divine  power,  an 
increase  of  the  means  of  food  took  place.  As  by  the  touch  of  his 
hand,  he  healed  and  blessed,  so  by  this  he  created.  With  this, 
however,  we  are  still  to  regard  these  phenomena  as  greatly  acceler- 
ated natural  processes  [?] ;  for  real  formations  can  be  produced  only 
by  a  series  of  real  developments.  Yet  these  developments  are 
capable  of  being  accelerated  and  that  to  an  extent  which  it  is  im- 
possible for  us  to  limit.  But  the  right  conception  of  a  miracle, 
which  discerns  in  it  a  higher  principle  of  causality,  compels  us  to 
such  suppositions.  No  phenomenon  is  conceivable  except  in  con- 
nexion with  adequate  powers  of  causation.  But  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  all  the  higher  powers  which  control  the  processes  of  nature 
penetrated  directly  and  profoundly  to  the  very  heart  of  natural  life, 
while  with  sovereign  and  creative,  because  Divine  energy,  he  per- 
vaded all  elementary  formations,  arranging  and  guiding  them  to 
more  exalted  ends.  As  to  the  increase  of  the  means  of  food,  simi- 
lar things  were  seen  formerly,  under  the  Old  Testament.  Elijah, 
with  twenty  loaves  (2  Kings  iv.  42,  seq.),  fed  one  hundred  men. 
Oil  and  meal  increased  to  the  widow  at  Sarepta.  (2  Kings  iv.  1, 
seq.,  comp.  also  1  Kings  xvii.  1,  seq.)  Manna  and  quails  nourished 

tween  seed  time  and  harvest,  is  said  here  to  have  been  done  within  a  few  minutes, 
while  the  food  was  being  divided.  Thus  the  narrative  will  have  us  believe  in  an  in- 
crease wondrously  hastened  forward,  and  I  could  more  easily  discredit  the  fact  were  I  the 
most  believing  of  men,  or  I  could  credit  it  were  I  the  most  unbelieving^  sooner  than  really 
and  truly  believe  that  the  narrative  does  'not  intend  to  make  us  believe  it."  The  pitiful  re- 
mark of  Strauss,  in  reply  to  this  profound  view  of  Pfenninger,  that  for  the  production  of 
bread,  besides  the  natural  process  of  growing,  there  is  required  also  the  artificial  work 
of  grinding  and  baking,  originates  assuredly  in  something  worse  than  mere  intellectual  in- 
capacity, namely,  in  his  entire  disbelief  in  a  living  God.  But  for  this,  he  would  not  have 
had  such  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  Divine  agency  had  replaced  the  work  of  man. 

*  Yet  in  no  gospel  narrative  is  a  pure  exercise  of  creative  power  ascribed  to  the  Sa- 
viour. As  nature,  out  of  the  seed  corn,  evolves  a  new  creation,  so  Christ  turns  water 
into  wine  and  increases  the  already  existing  bread,  but  without  a  substratum  to  begin 
with,  he  makes  neither  wine  nor  bread.  I  observe  that  in  these  remarks  I  refer  only  to 
the  recorded  facts ;  how  far  it  is  conceivable  that  Christ's  miraculous  powers  might  have 
been  put  forth  in  a  different  form,  is  another  question.  According  to  gospel  history,  the 
Saviour  constantly  appears  as  the  restorer  of  creation.  He  creates  no  new  men,  but  he 
transforms  the  old ;  he  makes  no  new  bodily  members  formerly  wanting,  but  he  restores 
the  old  that  were  useless.  The  same  thing  applies  to  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
for  even  in  the  case  of  the  manna,  the  supernatural  increase  of  a  natural  production  may 
be  supposed,  and  not  the  creation  of  matter  absolutely  new. 


MATTHEW  XIV.  21,  22.  521 

the  Israelites  in  the  desert.  (As  to  the  typical  meaning  of  this,  see 
on  John  vi.)  What  was  there  done  by  God  in  heaven  and  from 
afar,  is  here  effected  by  God  visible  and  near  at  hand.  (Ps.  cxlv. 
15,  16.) 


§  26.    JESUS  WALKS  ON  THE  SEA. 

(Matt.  xiv.  22-36;  Mark  vi.   45-56;  John  vi.  16-21.) 

The  following  narrative  of  our  Lord's  walking  on  the  sea  is  in  so 
far  akin  to  the  preceding,  as  it  also  manifests  Christ's  dominion 
over  the  natural  world  ;  yet  exhibited  in  an  entirely  different  rela- 
tion. For  we  meet  here  not  so  much  an  influence  brought  to  bear 
on  nature,  as  a  personal  withdrawal  from  the  control  of  earthly 
natural  laws  here,  viz.,  that  of  gravity.  The  difficulty  which  is  com- 
monly found  in  this  occurrence,  disappears,  or  at  least  is' consider- 
ably diminished,  if,  along  with  that  close  affinity  which  connected 
the  body  of  Christ  with  those  of  other  men,  we  recognise  definitely 
its  distinctive  peculiarities.  It  is  common  to  conceive  of  the  glori- 
fying of  our  Lord's  body,  as  effected  either  at  the  resurrection  or 
ascension,  and  as  the  work  of  a  moment.  But  if  we  suppose  the 
Spirit's  work,  in  glorifying  and  perfecting  Christ's  body,  to  have  been 
spread  over  the  Saviour's  whole  life  (certain  periods  being  still  dis- 
tinguished as  seasons  of  special  efficiency),  much  that  is  obscure 
will  be  made  clear.  A  body  absolutely  earthly,  chained  down  by 
unseen  bands  to  earthly  matter,  cannot  shake  itself  free  from  its 
origin,  but  that  a  higher  bodily  nature,  teeming  with  the  powers  of 
a  loftier  world,  should  rise  above  the  earthly  level,  is  less  surprising.* 
This  transaction,  then,  of  Christ's  walking  on  the  sea,  is  not  to  be 
viewed  as  a  work  wrought  upon  him  and  effected  by  magic,  as 
though  some  external  power  had  laid  hold  on  him  and  borne 
him  up,  but  as  the  result  effected  by  his  own  will,  the  forth- 
putting  of  an  energy  inherent  in  himself.  If  this  power  was 
seldom  used,  it  was  because  the  Saviour  never  did  wonders  for  the 
sake  of  doing  them,  but  to  serve  some  useful  end.  Thus  in  the 
present  instance,  the  manifestation  of  his  hidden  glory  was  designed 
to  build  up  his  disciples  in  the  faith.  They  saw  more  and  more 
with  whom  they  had  to  do,  and  perceived  that  he  was  the  revelation 
of  the  invisible  Father  (Matth.  xvi.  16)  ;  their  Jewish  preposses- 
sions, as  to  the  Messiah,  were  more  and  more  cleared  up  in  his  light. 

*  The  absurd  questions  which  Strauss  (vol.  ii.,  p.  182,  second  edition)  gets  up  in  reply 
to  this  explanation,  he  might  have  spared  himself  had  he  been  willing  to  reflect  that  the 
freeing  of  Christ's  body  from  its  bondage  to  the  earth,  is  not  inconsistent  with  its  being 
entirely  at  the  disposal  of  his  own  free  will. 


522  MATTHEW  XIY.  22-25. 

The  Old  Testament  representations  of  Jehovah's  glory  were  in  liv- 
ing reality  set  before  their  eyes  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  He  alone 
spreadeth  out  the  heavens  and  walketh  on  the  waves  of  the  sea. 
(Job  ix.  8.)  We  will  not  disturb  those  heavenly  images  of  a  Divine 
government  among  men,  by  reviewing  the  attempts  that  have  been 
made  in  defiance  of  just  exegesis,  to  reduce  their  weighty  significancy 
to  the  level  of  every-day  generalities.  Such  pictures,  taken  from 
the  Lord's  life,  set  before  us  in  miniature  his  whole  mighty  work  and 
influence  on  the  inner  world  of  the  human  spirit ;  they  are  full  of 
exhaustless  meaning. — As  respects  the  form  of  the  narrative,  the 
superiority  in  vivid  and  graphic  description  belongs  to  Matthew. 
The  incident  which  befel  Peter,  who  wished  to  come  to  Jesus  over 
the  water,  is,  for  example,  recorded  by  Matthew  alone.  John's  ac- 
count is  short,  and  like  most  narratives  of  events  contributed  by 
that  Evangelist,  is  given  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  the  discourses  which 
are  connected  with  it.  The  motive  which  led  to  the  breaking  up  of 
the  assembly,  and  the  removal  of  the  disciples,  is,  however,  distinctly 
assigned  by  John,  who  thus  confirms  the  accuracy  of  the  connexion 
between  this  and  the  preceding  occurrences  as  stated  by  the  three 
other  Evangelists.  The  miraculous  supply  of  food  excited  in  these 
worldly  men  a  desire  to  make  Jesus  the  Messianic  king.  From  their 
importunities  he  withdrew  by  retiring  to  the  solitude  of  a  mountain 
for  prayer  (Matth.  xiv.  23),  but  he  caused  his  disciples  to  go  before 
him  by  ship  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea.  Mark  vi.  45  specifies 
Bethsaida,  John  vi.  17,  Capernaum,  as  the  point  to  which  their 
course  was  directed.  As  the  two  places,  however,  were  close  to  each 
other,  the  disciples  may  have  intended  first  to  put  in  at  the  one 
point,  and  then  sail  on  to  the  other.  (The  expression  dvayred&iv, 
constrain,  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  ver.  22  and  45,  means  merely 
earnest  impressive  exhortation,  and  this  was  needed  apparently  be- 
cause the  disciples  were  unwilling  to  separate  from  their  Lord.) 

Ver.  24,  25. — John  (vi.  16)  mentions  the  evening  as  the  time  of 
their  setting  sail.  From  his  supplemental  remark  "  and  Jesus  had 
not  come  to  them,"  it  would  appear  that  they  had  continued  to  look 
for  Jesus  rejoining  them,  and  it  was  probably  their  thus  waiting  for 
him  which  delayed  so  long  the  period  of  their  setting  sail.  As  the 
darkness  of  night  now  came  on,  and  a  storm  arose,  the  scene  assumed 
that  terrific  character  which  is  in  harmony  with  the  entire  narrative. 
Through  gloom  and  tempest  came  the  Lord,  walking  over  the  raging 
waves,  to  the  help  of  his  disciples  in  their  tossing  boat.  Matthew 
and  Mark  observe  that  the  wind,  besides  being  fierce,  was  contrary 
to  them  (t-vaim'of),  so  that  the  force  of  the  waves  struck  the  boat 
more  violently  ((3aoavi&adai).  According  to  John,  they  had  already 
rowed  a  distance  of  25-30  stadia  (iXavvetv\  and  consequently  more 
than  half-way  across  (the  sea  was  40  stadia  broad,  about  one  Ger- 


MATTHEW  XIV.  25-31.  523 

man  mile,*  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.,  i.  3,  35),  when  they  saw  Jesus  walk- 
ing on  the  sea.  According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  it  was  now 
towards  the  morning,  about  the  fourth  watch.  ($vXaK.r}  —  rn»«jN.) 
Before  the  Exile  the  Jews  had  divided  the  night  into  three  parts  ; 
afterwards  they  adopted  the  four  Roman  divisions  of  three  hours 
each.  In  the  expression  airr/Afe  -npb<;  avrovg,  Tie  went  away  to  them, 
the  idea  of  his  leaving  the  place  where  he  was  formerly  staying,  is 
concisely  conjoined  with  that  of  his  going  to  meet  the  disciples. 

Ver.  26,  27. — The  disciples  seeing  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea  took 
fright ;  they  believed  they  saw  a  fydvTaapa.  Ilvevfia,  spirit,  stands  in 
a  similar  connexion  at  Luke  xxiv.  37.  The  term  is  to  be  understood 
in  all  its  latitude  like  our  word  apparition,  (gespenst),  which  accord- 
ing to  popular  notions,  means  any  sort  of  incorporeal  appearance, 
without  very  accurately  defining  the  idea  of  it.  That  anything  of  a 
bodily  nature  could  walk  on  the  sea,  was  inconceivable  to  the  disci- 
ples, and  there  came  upon  them,  therefore,  the  terror  which  usually 
accompanies  unwonted  spiritual  phenomena.  The  word  uttered 
by  Jesus  eyw  el/^L,  it  is  I,  reassures  the  disciples.  In  him  they  had 
already  recognised  unwonted  and  extraordinary  characteristics  ; 
they  saw  in  him  the  ruler  of  the  invisible  world ;  through  him  they  had 
been  brought  into  friendship  with  that  world  ;  and  they  knew  that 
he  ever  came  to  their  aid  in  moments  of  danger.  The  expression 
im  rrjg  Oakdaarjg  or  im  rr)v  OdXaaaav  (in  Matthew),  and  afterwards  at 
Matth.  xiv.  28,  29,  erri  ra  vdara,  certainly  may  mean  beside  the  sea, 
inasmuch  as  the  bank  of  the  sea  or  river  is  conceived  of  as  ele- 
vated above  the  level  of  the  water.  (2  Kings  ii.  7 ;  Dan.  viii.  2  ; 
according  to  the  LXX.)  Of  itself,  however,  im  never  means  ad 
juxta  (compare  Fritzsche  Comm.  in  Matth.,  p.  503),  but  to  or  towards 
anything,  versus.  (Acts  xvii.  14.)  The  parallel  passage,  John  xxi. 
1,  is  very  accurately  explained  by  Fritzsche,  tyavfyuoev  eavrbv  6 
'Iijaovg  roig  fj,adr]Tatg  Knl  TT/^  daXdaor]^  (pvoCv),  Jesus  shewed  himself  to  the 
disciples  (when  they  were}  on  the  sea,  in  such  a  way  that  the  formula 
bears  its  usual  meaning.  But  that  in  the  passage  before  us  there 
is  no  evading  the  obvious  import  of  the  words  that  Christ  walked 
over  the  waves  of  the  sea,  appears  plainly  from  the  narrative  taken 
as  a  whole.  If  differently  understood,  it  becomes  either  trivial  or 
deceptive.  The  opinion  which  would  hold  it  a  myth  is  sufficiently 
refuted  by  the  calm  tone  of  the  narrators.  Least  of  all  can  Mat- 
thew's account  of  Peter's  walking  on  the  sea  be  reconciled  to  it. 
This  stands  forth  as  a  naked  fact. 

Ver.  28-31. — The  peculiar  conduct  of  Peter,  the  account  of  which 
is  here  contributed  by  Matthew,  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  that  dis- 
ciple's character.  Hence  also  a  similar  incident  is  told  of  him  after 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  (John  xxi.  7,  seq).  Fiery  and  ardent,  full 
*  One  German  is  equal  to  about  4J  English  miles. 


524  MATTHEW  XIV.  2&-31. 

of  burning  love  for  the  Lord,  lie  cannot  wait  patiently  the  moment, 
of  his  near  approach,  but  hastens  to  meet  him  with  most  daring 
courage.  As  John  is  called  the  disciple  whom  the  Lord  loved,  8v 
l\yama,  6  'Irjaovs  (John  xxi.  7),  so  might  it  be  said  of  Peter  that  he 
loved  the  Lord.  In  other  words,  as  the  nature  of  John  was  pre-em- 
inently receptive  and  profound,  Peter  was  distinguished  for  activity 
and  force.  As  however  this  power  of  love  wherewith  he  embraced 
the  Saviour  was  not  yet  freed  from  selfishness,  it  betrayed  him  into 
mistakes  of  the  most  various  kinds.  In  the  present  case  also,  his 
impetuous  haste  brings  about  a  fall.  The  whole  of  this  little  history 
is  a  rich  picture  of  our  interior  life — a  commentary  on  the  words  of 
the  prophet,  the  heart  of  a  man  is  a  froward  and  timorous  thing  ( Jer. 
xvii.  9).  Without  the  command  (not  a  mere  permission)  of  the  Lord, 
Peter  will  not  venture  from  the  ship.  Trusting  to  the  iXQe,  come, 
he  walks  forth,  but  at  sight  of  the  hurricane,  he  sinks.  (Karairov- 
ri&odai  occurs  again  at  Matth.  xviii.  6,  in  the  sense  of  sinking,  or  being 
sunk  into  the  TTOVTO?.)  Yet  his  faith  remains  so  far  firm  that  he 
only  seeks  aid  from  Jesus.  (Here  he  already  calls  him  Kvpie,  Lord, 
with  reference  to  his  higher  nature,  the  knowledge  of  which  had 
previously  been  revealed  to  Peter  [see  on  Matth.  xvi.  16].  So  also, 
on  seeing  this  dominion  exercised  by  Jesus  over  the  powers  of  nature, 
the  other  disciples  take  occasion  to  make  the  confession  at  ver.  33, 
dXrjO&g  Qeov  vibs  el,  truly  tJiou  art  the  Son  of  God,  Comp.  on  Matth. 
xvi.  16.)  Christ  gave  him  help  along  with  a  word  of  rebuke,  6Xiy6- 
mare,  of  little  faith,  which,  however,  is  a  different  thing  from  dmare, 
faithless.  The  point  of  reproof  was  merely  that  the  faith  which 
existed  in  him  was  not  beyond  being  shaken.  (Amra^cj  occurs  again 
at  Matth.  xxviii.  17.  Literally  it  means  to  turn  in  two  different 
directions,  hesitating  and  undetermined  which  to  follow.  Whence 
it  denotes  in  general  to  be  in  doubt,  and  is  equivalent  to  di^tajSr)- 
rew.)  Here  again,  as  in  all  the  miracles  of  Christ,  faith  is  shewn  to 
be  the  medium  through  which  they  are  wrought  on  men.  So  long 
as  the  soul  of  Peter  was  purely  and  simply  turned  towards  the  Lord, 
he  was  capable  of  receiving  within  himself  the  fullness  of  Christ's 
life  and  Spirit,  so  that  Christ's  power  became  his  power  ;  but  when, 
by  giving  scope  and  weight  to  an  alien  power,  he  became  less  suscep- 
tible to  spiritual  influence,  that  power  entered  his  heart,  repressed 
the  influence  of  Christ,  and  the  sea-walker  sunk  back  into  the 
earthly  element.  Analogous  to  this  is  the  way  in  which  faith  in  the 
Lord's  strengthening  and  upholding  power  conducts  us  securely  over 
the  agitated  sea  of  our  sinful  life,  while,  alas  !  it  but  too  often  hap- 
pens that  the  failure  sinks  us  down  into  the  waters.  That  the  gospel 
narratives  admit  such  spiritual  applications,  is  no  accidental  feature, 
nor  is  the  application  itself  to  be  viewed  as  arbitrary  and  capricious. 
Much  rather  does  it  spring  from  the  weight  and  significance  of  the 


MATTHEW  XIV.  31-33.  525 

Saviour's  character,  as  the  centre  of  all  spiritual  life,  that  every 
thing  in  him  and  with  him  rises  into  a  higher  significancy. 

Ver  32,  33. — According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  disciples,  in 
the  strongest  terms,  express  their  astonishment  (Mark  v.  51,  Mav — 
£K  Trepiaaov — e&oTaodai)  and  adoration.  (The  meaning  of  -npoa- 
Kwelv,  worship,  which  had  otherwise  been  vague,  is  at  Matth.  xiv. 
33,  accurately  defined  by  the  confession  which  follows  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God.  See  as  to  this  more  at  length  on  Matth.  xvi.  16). 
Christ,  along  with  Peter,  stepped  on  board  the  ship,  the  wind 
calmed  down  (ave^o?  iKonaoe,  see  above,  Mark  iv.  39,  =  ja^vt]  £yi- 
vero),  and  they  gained  the  further  shore.  The  account  given  at 
John  v.  21,  rjdekov  Aa/3m>  avrov,  they  would  take  him,  seems  to  differ 
from  the  others,  as  though  the  disciples  had  intended  taking  him  on 
board  when  they  suddenly  found  themselves  already  at  the  land. 
Head  by  itself  the  statement  of  John  would  leave  the  impression 
that  the  evdeus  TO  -nXolov  £yevero  Im  rrjs  yrjg,  the  ship  became  straight- 
way at  the  land,  also  seemed  to  him  something  miraculous.  But 
as  the  disciples  had  in  the  first  instance  sailed  half  the  distance 
before  they  saw  Jesus,  as  they  had  the  wind  against  them,  and  as 
during  the  scene  between  Christ  and  Peter,  they  assuredly  forgot 
their  oars,  they  cannot  well  have  very  speedily  reached  the  shore. 
The  meaning  of  evOe^,  straightway,  however,  is  vague,  and  none  of 
the  narrators  give  marks  to  fix  the  time  ;  we  can  therefore  conceive 
of  a  rapid  rowing  forward  of  the  ship  through  the  calm,  and  an 
immediate  landing  thereafter.  The  only 'difficulty  that  remains  is 
the  r/0eAov  hapelv,  wished  to  take,  in  so  far  as  it  is  usually  held  to  imply 
the  non-fulfilment  of  the  purposed  intention,  in  which  case  there 
would  result  an  open  contradiction  to  the  two  other  narrators.  We 
might  certainly  at  once,  in  this  as  in  other  cases,  admit  a  contradic- 
tion, inasmuch  as  the  Gospel  history  makes  no  claim  to  exemption 
from  trifling  and  unimportant  irregularities.  At  all  events,  we 
would  rather  do  so  than  either  hold  £0eAw  to  be  here  redundant,  or 
that  it  means  to  do  a  thing  eagerly  and  joyfully  (so  that  the  sense 
should  be — they  took  him  eagerly  and  joyfully  on  board),  a  con- 
struction for  which  there  is  no  support  in  the  usage  of  the  New 
Testament.*  The  following,  however,  appears  to  me  a  simple  way 
of  solving  the  difficulty.  The  disciples  were  afraid  that  they  saw  a 
spirit,  which  naturally  they  wished  as  far  as  possible  from  their 
ship.  Jesus,  however,  explained  to  them  that  it  was  he.  To  this 
it  is  simply  added  that  on  receiving  this  explanation  they  strove  to 
take  him  in,  with  the  natural  ellipsis,  and  they  took  him  in  accord- 
ingly— after  which  they  directly  gained  the  land.  (The  verb  tfeAetv 
then  retains  in  this  case  its  literal  meaning  of  active  volition,  see 

*  In  profane  writers,  especially  in  Xenophon  (Cyrop.,  I.  1,  3,  1,  5,  19.  Anab.,  IL  6, 
6,  and  11),  this  use  of  £0cAu  frequently  occurs. 


526  MATTHEW  XIV.  33-36;   XV.  1,2. 

Passoio  in  Lex  sub  voce.  For,  in  order  to  take  in  Christ  while  the 
ship  was  on  her  course,  certain  preparations  were  needful,  such  as 
the  taking  down  of  the  sail,  etc.  The  whole  of  these  operations  are 
denoted  by  the  ijdehov  Aa/Mv,  and  the  expression  consequently  im- 
plies the  effectual  carrying  out  of  these  preparations.  The  clause, 
therefore,  if  completed,  would  run  thus  :  rjdeXov  ovv  Xafidv  avrbv  elg 
rb  -rrXolov  aal  eXa(3ov,  they  ivished  to  take,  etc.,  and  took}. 

Ver.  34-36. — Both  Evangelists  conclude  this  narrative  with  the 
general  remark  that  immediately  after  the  return  of  Jesus  many 
sick  persons  applied  for  his  help,  and  strove  simply  to  touch  the  hem 
of  his  garment.  (Compare  what  is  said  on  Luke  viii.  44.)  Mark 
is  more  copious  in  his  language,  but  without  adding  any  new  ideas, 
only  that  when  he  passes  on  to  relate  their  arrival  at  the  opposite 
shore,  immediately  after  stating  the  astonishment  of  the  disciples  at 
Christ's  walking  on  the  sea,  he  adds :  ov  ovvrjicav  fal  rotg  ap-rotf, 
they  had  not  understood  in  relation  to  [the  miracle  of~\  the  loaves 
(elliptically  for  inl  r<5  Oavfiari  T<*>  iv  rolg  dproi$  yevojtzevw).  Mark  means 
to  say  that  they  might  have  been  able  from  that  miracle  of  feeding 
the  multitude  to  recognise  sufficiently  his  Divine  nature,  if  their 
capacity  for  receiving  the  truth  had  not  been  so  weak.  (Respect- 
ing irupovaOai  [callo  obduci,  then  to  become  hardened,  insensible], 
see  Mark  viii.  17  ;  Rom.  xi.  7.  It  is  parallel  to  ira^vveodai,  Matth. 
xiii.  15.  Tlpooop^eodai,  anchor,  Mark  vi.  53,  from  opjuof,  occurs 
only  here.) 


§  27.  OF  WASHING  THE  HANDS. 

(Matth.  xv.  1-20;  Mark  vii.  1-23.) 

On  the  chronological  relation  of  this  event  to  the  preceding, 
little  can  be  said,  owing  to  the  vagueness  of  the  connecting  formula. 
It  would  be  rash  to  draw  any  inference  from  the  presence  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes  who  came  down  from  Jerusalem.  For  the 
fact  that  they  came  from  Jerusalem  does  not  prove  that  they 
belonged  to  Jerusalem,  and  just  as  little  that  they  were  sent  for  the 
purpose  of  watching  him.  We  can  only  infer  from  the  form  of 
Christ's  discourse  against  the  Pharisees,  that  the  occurrence  belongs 
to  the  latter  period  of  his  ministry,  for  during  his  earlier  labours  he 
did  'not  usually  express  himself  so  strongly  against  them. 

Ver.  1,  2. — It  was  so  completely  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of 
Phariseeism  to  rebuke  every  deviation  from  their  sacred  external 
ritual  that  the  question  of  these  Pharisees  may  be  accounted  for 
without  supposing  that  they  were  designedly  lying  in  wait  for  Christ. 
Such  scruples  arose  from  the  peculiar  character  of  their  minds. 


MATTHEW  XV.  2-4.  527 

The  -napddoais  r&v  Trpeapvrepw,  tradition  of  the  elders,  consists  of 
those  ftaynara  aypa^a,  unwritten  decisions,  which  gradually  among 
the  learned  men  of  the  Jews  had  formed  around  the  Mosaic  law  a 
new  and  holy  circle  of  commands.  Mark  feels  himself  called  on,  for 
the  sake  of  his  non- Jewish  readers,  to  explain  more  particularly  the 
practice  of  eating  with  the  hands  washed.  (Kowog  =  Nwia  Acts  x.  14, 
conjoined  with  dudOaprov,  here  it  is  equivalent  to  dvnrTog.}  He  ob- 
serves  that  among  the  Pharisaic  Jews  it  was  the  general  custom 
(ndvTE<;  ol  'lovdaloi  is  to  be  taken  in  connexion  with  K^arovv-eg  TTJV 
-rrapddomv,  for  the  Sadducees  did  not  observe  such  ordinances).  The 
meaning  of  Trvypy  vitpovrat  rd<;  x&pas  is  uncertain.  Undoubtedly, 
however,  -rcvy^  is  to  be  taken  in  the  usual  sense  of  hand,  fist,  so 
that  the  method  in  which  the  Jews  washed  before  eating  is  here 
pointed  out.  The  hands  seem  to  have  been  used  alternately,  the 
one  in  washing  the  other.  The  Syriac  translators  have  rendered  it 
frequently,  generally,  as  though  they  had  read  it  Trvicvy.  Either  the 
translator  heard  the  word  wrong,  or  he  did  not  know  how  to  interpret 
irvypij.  Mark,  after  explaining  the  practice  of  washing  the  hands, 
next  proceeds  to  other  usages  of  the  same  kind  ;  for  ablutions  of  all 
sorts  (among  the  rest  those  applicable  to  the  priests,  Exod.  xxix. 
4  ;  xxx.  18,  seq.,  compared  with  Heb.  ix.  10),  were  common  among 
the  Jews.  He  confines  himself,  however,  to  those  washings  which 
accompanied  meals.  The  term  fta-rrri^eaOai  is  different  from  viTrreaQai ; 
the  former  is  the  dipping  and  rinsing,  or  cleansing  of  food  that  has 
been  purchased,  to  free  it  from  impurities  of  any  kind  ;  vimeadai 
includes  also  the  act  of  rubbing  off.  In  precisely  the  same  way  do 
the  Kabbins  distinguish  between  r&;ts3  and  tri;  mVtss.  (Compare 
Liglitfoot  on  the  passage.  Barmc^o^  is  here,  as  at  Heb.  ix.  10, 
ablution,  washing  generally.)  The  words  -norripiov,  l&rr^c,  %a/Utov, 
are  different  names  for  vessels.  TloTrjpiov  denotes  a  drinking  vessel ; 
£e<7~7/£,  corrupted  from  the  Latin  sextuarius,  a  vessel  for  hold- 
ing or  measuring  fluids  ;  %a/l/aov  a  vessel  of  brass,  the  nature  of 
which  we  cannot  more  accurately  determine.  The  tiHvai,  couches, 
must,  in  this  connexion,  be  referred  to  the  couches  on  which 
the  ancients  were  wont  to  recline  at  meals.  (Compare  Mark 
iv.  21). 

Ver.  3,  4. — In  the  following  discourse,  addressed  by  Jesus 
to  the  Pharisees  (down  to  ver.  11),  Mark  varies  from  Matthew, 
inasmuch  as  he  makes  the  Saviour  begin  with  the  quotation 
from  Isaiah,  while  in  Matthew  it  forms  the  conclusion.  The  latter 
is  unquestionably  the  more  natural  position.  Appropriately  the 
description  of  the  Pharisees  stands  first,  and  then  follows  the  pas- 
sage from  the  prophet,  as  in  confirmation  of  what  had  been  said. 
The  leading  idea  of  the  whole  passage,  however,  is  neither  more 
nor  less  than  the  opposition  of  human  institutions  to  the  divine  com- 


528  MATTHEW  XV.  £-6. 

mand.  The  real  test  of  a  spurious  faith  is  the  substituting  of  the 
former  of  these  for  the  latter,  or  the  placing  it  above  the  latter.  In 
this  way  the  spirit  is  withdrawn  from  the  service  of  God :  it  becomes 
a  mere  human  service.  This  perversion  of  the  Divine  ordinances 
by  human,  the  Saviour  explains  by  an  example,  shewing  how 
Pharisaic  hypocrisy  subverted  a  holy  precept  of  God  by  an  ordi- 
nance calculated  to  promote  their  own  earthly  interests.  Jesus  quotes 
Exod.  xx.  12  ;  xxi.  17,  in  order  to  shew  what,  according  to  the 
Divine  ordinance,  is  the  true  relation  in  which  children  stand  to  their 
parents.  The  Mosaic  regulation,  the  Lord  (Mark  vii.  10)  here  ac- 
knowledges as  one  which  proceeded  directly  from  God,  because  God 
spake  through  Moses,  and  his  ordinances  possessed  Divine  authority. 
Ka/co/loyeZv,  curse  (=  ^ao^^lv),  stands  in  antithesis  to rififiv, honour, 
in  the  same  way  that  paKpoxpoviog  yiveodai,  be  long  lived,  in  the  first 
(not  fully  quoted)  passage,  does  to  the  verb  dTroOvijoKeiv,  die.  The 
highest  curse  and  the  highest  blessing  were  thus,  under  the  theo- 
cratic dispensation,  conceived  under  sensible  forms. 

Ver.  5,  6. — This  holy  commandment  the  Pharisees  taught  men  to 
evade  by  the  ordinance — "  Temple  offerings  take  precedence  of  all 
gifts  in  behalf  of  parents."  As  to  the  construction,  we  observe, 
first,  that  the  clause  dwpov  (sc.  earw),  o  eav  i^ifiov  bxfrekrffiig,  is  obscure. 
The  parents  are  conceived  as  making  a  request,  and  the  children  as 
refusing  it,  with  the  explanation  that  what  might  have  been  due  to 
them  (edv  stands  for  dv,  compare  Winer,  p.  285)  they  had  already 
decided  to  give  to  the  temple.  (Awpov  =  -ja^,  applies  as  well  to 
bloody  as  to  unbloody  offerings.)  On  this  they  found  the  inference 
that  it  is  not  incumbent  to  give  them  anything.  Probably  it  is  to 
be  presumed  either  that  the  priests  took  a  small  portion  of  the  gift 
instead  of  the  whole,  or  that  they  were  able  to  instil  it  into  the 
children  that  they  would  acquire  special  merit  by  those  temple- 
offerings.  It  is  not  conceivable  otherwise  that  any  child  could  have 
been  induced  to  act  thus  towards  his  parents.  The  second  difficulty 
lies  in  the  expression  KOI  ov  firj  rifiTJoq.  Mark  guides  us  here  to  the 
right  meaning.  In  the  first  place,  the  future  rtfiTJoei  is  a  false  read- 
ing ;  it  does  not  agree  with  d-rrij.  In  the  next  place,  the  KOI  ov 
corresponds  to  N^I,  and  introduces  the  answering  clause  (the 
apodosis  of  the  proposition)  : — "  if  any  one  says,  what  would  have 
been  yours  is  consecrated  to  the  temple,  he  need  not  (ov  \.ir\,  he 
shall  not)  honour  father  and  mother."  The  verb  -n\iav  (in  the  sense 
of  giving  bodily  support),  is  thus  chosen  simply  to  bring  out  more 
markedly  the  contradiction  to  the  Divine  commandment.  It  is 
needless  to  suppose  that  anything  is  to  be  supplied,  e.  g.,  dvain.6^ 
ton.  Hence  our  Lord  deduces  the  inference  that  by  their  human 
institutions  they  subvert  the  Divine  (ekvpow  is  used  especially  in 
regard  to  laws.  Gal.  iii.  17). 


MATTHEW  XV.  7-14.  529 

Ver.  7-9. — After  this  Jesus  applies  the  prophetic  words  of  Isaiah 
xxix.  13,  to  the  piety  of  the  Pharisees.  The  two  evangelists  agree 
word  for  word  (only  instead  of  6  Aao$-  OVTO$,  Mark  has  ovrog  6  haog) 
in  the  quotation.  The  LXX.  deviates  from  the  original  much  in 
its  expressions,  although  the  idea  is  the  same.  This  agreement  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  in  a  passage  containing  a  deviation,  and  which 
is  quoted  from  memory,  would  lead  to  the  inference  that  the  one 
had  used  the  other's  gospel,  or  that  they  had  drawn  from  some  com- 
mon source  [possibly  from  a  Chaldee  Targum].  (Tho  text  of 
Matthew  in  this  quotation  is  in  several  MSS.  corrected  after  the 
LXX.  Mark  being  less  read  and  less  expounded,  is  free  from  such 
interpolations.)  The  simple  idea  then  expressed  by  the  prophet  is 
this — the  outward  service  of  God,  unless  the  whole  inner  man  take 
part  in  it  with  the  living  energy  of  mind  and  will  (both  being  com- 
prehended in  the  aapdia  =  aV)  is  in  the  highest  degree  offensive 
to  God.  Isaiah  spake  these  words  to  the  Jews  of  his  day,  as  the 
connexion  of  the  passage  shews,  yet  both  evangelists  remark  that 
Christ  observed  itak&s  Trpoe^rJTsvae  -rrepl  i;/w5v,  well  did  he  prophesy 
concerning  you,  an  expression  which  may  serve  as  a  commentary  to 
the  words  OTTW?  ?r/l7/pw0^,  that  it  may  be  fulfilled.  An  explicit  refer- 
ence in  these  words  to  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus,  the  Saviour, 
and  also  the  evangelists,  must  have  discovered  in  this  passage,  in 
thus  far,  that  as  Christ  was  the  central  point  of  all  life  and  being 
under  the  theocracy,  every  mental  tendency  and  aim,  even  though 
partially  embodied  in  earlier  representatives,  yet  gathered  around 
him  in  the  full  development  and  display  of  their  inherent  qualities. 
The  whole  Old  Testament  history  was  prophetic  of  Christ  and  of 
those  around  him  in  this  respect,  that  everywhere,  in  the  continually 
recurring  contest  between  light  and  darkness,  between  truth  and 
error,  there  were  displayed  the  types  of  that  which  in  its  highest 
energy  developed  itself  in  and  around  Christ.  (As  to  vTroKpiTrjg,  see 
on  Matth.  vi.  2). 

Ver.  10,  11. — The  general  idea  which  from  this  conversation 
pressed  itself  on  the  Saviour's  mind,  namely,  that  purity  is  to  be 
sought  for  within  the  soul  and  not  in  externals,  he  puts  forward 
before  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  as  the  germ  of  many  other 
fruitful  thoughts  (o%Ao$-  in  contrast  to  the  /m07?T -at),  for  the  benefit  of 
all  those  who  were  able  to  penetrate  its  meaning  and  properly  to 
apply  it.  As  the  idea,  however,  was  expressed  figuratively  (in  re- 
ference to  the  words  iv  7rapa/3oA^,  see  on  Matth.  xiii.  3),  Jesus,  at  a 
later  period,  after  he  had  dismissed  the  people  (Mark  vii.  17) 
prompted  by  a  request  from  the  disciples,  whose  organ  (according  to 
Matthew)  Peter  once  more  was,  gives  an  exposition  of  it.  (Matth. 
xv.  17-19.) 

Ver.  12-14. — Matthew  adds,  however,  a  parenthetical  explana- 
VOL.  I.— 34 


530  MATTHEW  XV.  12-16. 

tion  regarding  the  Pharisees  and  their  relation  to  the  kingdom  of 
God — an  explanation  called  forth  by  the  anxiety  of  the  disciples 
lest  the  Pharisees  should  have  taken  offence  at  his  discourse,  and 
lest  this  should  lead  to  fatal  results.  (As  to  aKavdaki&aOai,  see  on 
Matth.  xviii.  6.)  The  words  of  Christ  in  which  he  allays  their 
anxiety  on  this  point,  refer  also  to  the  parable  of  the  field  and  the 
different  kinds  of  seed,  to  the  end  of  the  bad  seed  and  of  the  plants 
which  spring  from  it.  (Matth.  xiii.  24,  seq.,  especially  ver.  30, 
(7f  AA^are  rd  fy^dwa  K.  r.  A.)  The  term  eKpifaOTJoerai,  shall  be  rooted 
up,  therefore  expresses  the  idea  of  the  final  judgment,  and  the 
Saviour  chose  for  the  statement  of  this  idea  a  figurative  form  of 
expression  already  familiar  to  the  disciples.  It  is  a  false  interpre- 
tation, however,  to  refer  the  <f>vTeia,  plant,  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees,  and  not  to  themselves  personally.  (Literally  the 
is  the  act  of  planting  itself,  then,  the  thing  planted  = 
That  were  a  false  attempt  to  weaken  the  idea  of  the  KaraKpiotg,  con- 
demnation, (the  total  cutting  off  from  the  communion  of  the  good), 
which  is  openly  announced  here  as  formerly  at  chap.  xiii.  30.  Un- 
doubtedly the  Pharisees  are  God's  creatures  as  well  as  other  men,  but 
in  as  far  as  their  false  systems,  in  their  moral  estrangement  from 
God,  had  become  blended  with  the  very  essence  of  their  being,  and 
in  fact  could  exist  only  there,  in  so  far  do  they  belong  not  to  God 
but  to  the  devil.  The  expression,  which  my  heavenly  Father  hath 
not  planted  (jjv  OVK  tyvrevoev  6  irarijp  \LOV  b  ovpdvtog),  must  therefore 
be  completed  by  supplying,  as  the  Evangelist  intended,  but  the  devil, 
who  according  to  Matth.  xiii.  25,  38,  casts  in  the  bad  seed.  (The  TKKVO, 
diaffokov  mean  the  same  thing,  see  on  John  viii.  44.)  An  absolute 
predestination  or  material  difference  (in  the  Manichean  sense)  be- 
tween the  good  and  the  evil  is  not  to  be  understood  here  ;  no  one  is 
by  birth  a  child  of  the  devil,  he  becomes  such  only  by  his  corrupt 
will  and  continued  striving  against  grace.  But  what  applies  to  the 
leader,  Jesus  attributes  also  to  the  followers  (see  on  Matth.  xxiii. 
15).  The  perverted  -suffer  along  with  the  perverter,  obviously 
according  to  the  principle  laid  down  at  Luke  xii.  47,  48.  The 
figurative  form  of  the  expression  of  the  thought  is  finally  intelligi- 
ble in  itself.  Luke  vi.  39,  inserts  it  amidst  the  contents  of  the  ser- 
mon on  the  mount.  (As  to  fi68vvo$,  see  Matth.  xii.  11.) 

Ver.  15,  16. — Hereupon  follows  the  request  of  the  apostles 
(Peter  being  their  representative),  that  he  would  explain  the  figur- 
ative discourse  (mzpajSoA-//,  see  on  Matth.  xiii.  3).  Jesus  rebukes  their 
defective  powers  of  comprehension  (avveoig  understanding,  vov<;t 
reason;  comp.  on  Luke  ii.  47),  and  then  explains  to  them  the  simil- 
itude. (The  expression  ekp/v  literally  means  on  the  moment  in  the 
Greek  profane  writers,  and  hence  becomes  synonymous  with  KTI} 
still.)  The  explanation  itself,  however,  is  still  very  difficult. 


MATTHEW  XV.  17-19.  531 

Ver.  17. — In  the  sentiment  formerly  stated  (ver.  11),  it  must 
nave  appeared  at  the  very  outset  a  difficulty  to  the  disciples  that 
Christ's  explanation,  "not  that  which  entereth  into  the  mouth 
defileth"  (TO  eiaep^o^vov  el$  rb  oro^a  ov  KoivoT),  seemed  to  contradict 
the  Old  Testament,  which  taught  the  distinction  between  clean 
and  unclean  meats.  As  Christ  acknowledges  the  divinity  of  the 
Old  Testament  (Matth.  v.  17),  he  must  see  an  importance  even 
in  its  laws  respecting  food.  That,  therefore,  these  were  wholly  void 
of  meaning,  the  Saviour  in  explaining  the  words,  does  by  no  means 
say.  He  only  gives  prominence  to  the  contrast  between  what  is 
external  and  internal,  and  calls  attention  to  the  circumstance,  that 
food,  as  something  external  (et-uOev  elcrrropevofJAvov  elg  rov  avdpu-nov), 
could  never  reach  or  pollute  the  soul.  He  does  not  however  say, 
that  what  is  outward  may  not  cause  outward  pollution,  or  that  it 
is  thus  of  no  consequence  what  a  man  may  eat.  This  was  hint 
enough  to  the  disciples  that  our  Lord  left  to  the  Jewish  laws 
all  their  significancy  as  to  externals  (and  as  types  of  what  was 
spiritual),  and  only  intended  to  rebuke  the  Pharisaic  substitutions 
of  the  outward  for  the  internal.*  Mark,  who  here  formally  para- 
phrases the  words  of  Matthew,  leads  to  a  right  apprehension  of  the 
first  half  of  the  thought.  The  food  taken  into  the  outward  organ 
for  its  reception, (the  mouth),  enters  not  into  the  inner  man  (napdia 
=  a?),  but  goes  into  the  Koikia,  belly,  to  nourish  the  bodily  organ- 
ism. The  additional  clause  KOI  elg  dfadp&va  eK0d^erat,  and  is 
thrown  out,  etc.,  is  partly  intended  as  the  climax  of  those  explana- 
tions, which  shew  how  thoroughly  external  the  process  of  taking 
food  is,  and  partly  designed  to  intimate  that  nature  herself  has 
assigned  the  means  of  separating  the  nourishing  element  in  food 
from  that  which  is  impure.  Mark,  in  his  explanatory  way,  ex- 
presses this  in  the  words  nadapi&v  ndvra  ra  ppuftara,  cleansing  all  our 
food.  The  neuter  gender  (the  readings  ttadapifav,  Ka6api&i,  are  the 
corrections  of  transcribers  to  diminish  difficulty)  refers  to  the  whole  of 
what  precedes,  in  such  a  way  that  rovro  KOTI  nadapi&v  must  be 
supplied. 

Ver.  18,  19. — The  internal  however  is  here  set  in  contrast  with 
that  which  is  outward,  and  to  this  is  referred  the  defilement  of  the 
real  (the  spiritual)  man.  To  this  defiling  of  the  soul  the  Pharisees 
gave  no  heed  while  carefully  avoiding  that  which  was  external.  In 
this  second  idea,  however,  there  are  internal  difficulties.  For,  first, 
it  would  seem  that  it  is  not  the  mere  issuing  forth  (the  manifesta- 

*  It  is  unquestionably  wrong  to  look  on  this  as  containing  an  abrogation  of  the  Old 
Testament  laws  respecting  food,  such  as  we  afterwards  find  at  Acts  x.  10.  The  Old  Tes- 
tament, as  typical  and  external  in  its  ordinances  (aiciu  -rCtv  [teWovTuv,  Heb.  x.  1),  could 
effect  only  outward  purification  (Heb.  ix.  23,  TI/V  rj/f  aapKdf  KaffapoTjjTo),  but  this  the 
Pharisees,  according  to  their  usual  mistake  of  the  outward  for  the  inward,  confounded 
with  spiritual  purity,  and  to  point  out  this  error  ia  the  object  of  Jesus. 


532  MATTHEW  XV.  18, 19. 

tion  of  feeling  by  word  or  deed),  but  the  presence  of  corrupt  feeling 
which  pollutes,  and  this  idea  assuredly  (as  Matth.  v.  28  shews)  the 
Saviour  was  far  from  wishing  to  exclude.  Again,  if  the  heart 
appears  as  the  source  of  evil  actions  (ver.  19,  in  rfjg  itapdiag  £t-ep%ow- 
TOI  dta^oyiofiol  TTGVTJQOL),  we  do  not  then  see  how  man  can  be  made 
unclean  ;  in  his  inmost  soul  he  is  unclean  already.  It  is  the  pure 
only,  not  the  impure,  that  admits  of  being  defiled.  This  leads  us 
to  determine  with  more  exactness  the  meaning  of  iK-rropeveaOai  IK  rov 
c;,  come  forth  out  of  the  mouth  (the  opposite  of  the  foregoing 
,  an  expression  which  seems  intended  to  mark  the  rela- 
tion of  the  will  to  evil  thoughts.  The  general  fact  that  evil  thoughts 
enter  into  the  mind  of  man,  is  a  consequence  of  the  universal  sinful- 
ness  of  the  race,  but  that  any  particular  evil  thoughts  gain  power 
over  him  sufficient  to  manifest  themselves  in  outward  act,  is  the 
result  of  the  will,  and  its  voluntary  choice.  By  actual  sin,  how- 
ever, the  habit  of  sinning  is  strengthened,  and  thus  also  the  nobler 
germ  of  human  nature  is  defiled.  The  heart,  here,  therefore,  is 
not  the  source  of  evil  thoughts,  but  th*  canal,  as  it  were,  through 
which  they  flow,  and  through  which  in  like  manner  the  Spirit  of 
grace  pours  good  thoughts  into  man.*  In  no  respect  is  man  the 
absolutely  free  and  independent  creator  of  his  own  thoughts  and 
inclinations  (which  Pelagianism  would  make  him),  but  he  possesses 
the  power  equally  of  rejecting  what  is  bad  and  admitting  what  is 
good  into  his  soul,  or  the  reverse.  It  is  very  obvious,  therefore, 
what  value  is  to  be  put  upon  the  opinion  of  those  who  infer  from 
these  words  that  the  heart  produces  at  will  evil  thoughts  (or 
good),  and  that  these  do  not  originate  in  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness. "  Doth  a  fountain  send  forth  from  the  same  opening  sweet 
water  and  bitter  ?"f  James  iii.  11.  (Comp.  as  to  Kaydia  and  SiaXo- 
yt0/z6£  at  Luke  i.  51  ;  ii.  35  ;  Matth.  ix.  4.)  In  the  enumeration  of 
the  several  forms  of  evil  propensities  which  is  also  given  by  Mark 
more  at  length,  a<reAyeta  is  not  to  be  referred  to  sexual  impurity,  as 
elsewhere  at  Kom.  xiii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  21 ;  Oral.  v.  19,  al.  freq.,  for 
it  stands  quite  apart  from  nopveiat  and  fiot%eiai.  It  is  best  under- 
stood as  denoting  an  evil  disposed  wilfulness  and  its  results.  The 

*  Krable  (on  Sin  and  Death,  Hamburg,  1836,  p.  131,  note)  thinks  that  "  Kapiia  is  the 
innermost  will  in  so  far  as  it,  acting  unconditionally,  co-operates  for  the  production  of 
actual  sin."  But  that  is  what  I  doubt — whether  the  human  will  can  act  unconditionally 
and  independently  of  everything  beyond  itself.  A  good  action  has  for  its  condition  the 
influence  of  God,  an  evil  action  that  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  and  its  prince.  How 
this  does  not  subvert  the  true  freedom  of  the  will,  is  shewn  in  our  remarks  on  Rom. 
ix.  1. 

f  Does  the  passage  mean  any  more  than  that  true  purity  depends  not  on  external 
rites,  but  on  the  state  of  the  heart  ?  Moral  defilement  consists  in  evil  thoughts.  In  the 
first  place,  they  mark  a  polluted  character,  and  secondly  tend  to  aggravate  its  pollu- 
tion.— [K, 


MATTHEW  XV.  1&-24.  533 

expression  6(f)daXfj,bg  TTWT/PO?,  however,  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew 
»5  f?,  Prov.  xxiii.  6  ;  xxviii.  22  ;  which  denotes  an  envious,  mali- 
cious glance.  It  is  connected  with  the  idea  that  such  a  look  is 
capable  of  inflicting  injury.  (Comp.  Matth.  xx.  15.)  The  last 
expression  dfyyoavvi]  =  dvoia}  refers  to  forms  of  sin  and  wickedness 
in  which  stupidity  is  prominently  exhibited — "senseless  wicked 
acts." 


§  28.  THE  HEALING  OF  THE  CANAANITISH  WOMAN'S  DAUGHTER. 

(Matth.  xv.  21-31 ;  Mark  viL  24-31,  [32-37 ;  viii.  22-26.] ) 

Without  marking  accurately  either  time  or  place,  Matthew  (and 
Mark  also,  who  follows  him),  proceeds  to  the  narrative  of  a  cure,  in 
which,  however,  our  interest  is  awakened,  not  so  much  by  the  act  of 
healing  itself,  as  by  the  antecedent  circumstances.  Mark  once 
more  distinguishes  himself  by  giving  minute  traits  which  illustrate 
the  outward  action,  but  he  leaves  out  also  essential  features,  for 
example  the  statement  at  Matth.  xv.  24,  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
heathen  to  the  people  of  Israel,  which  casts  so  much  light  on  the 
whole  transaction. 

Ver.  21. — The  ^ep??  Tvpov,  district  of  Tyre,  Mark  describes  more 
definitely  by  peOopia,  borders.  The  Lord  approached  these  bound- 
aries, but  that  he  really  passed  over  them,  is  rendered  improbable 
by  the  idea  stated  at  ver.  24.*  The  woman,  however,  came  to  meet 
him.  (Ver.  22,  dnb  rwv  dpiw  KKEIVCJV  efeAflovaa.) 

Ver.  22. — The  woman  is  called  by  Matthew  (in  the  true  phrase- 
ology of  Palestine),  %avavaia,  Canaanitess,  but  by  Mark  iXXrjvig  ovpo- 
<f>oiviK.iaaa,  Syrophenician  Greek  ;  (the  better  manuscripts  have  this 
form  instead  of  avpo^oiwaoa,  which  certainly  is  a  more  correct  Greek 
form  of  the  word,  but  on  this  very  account  is  less  deserving  of  being 
admitted  into  our  text.)  The  addition  of  TO>  jevu,  by  race,  obviously 
marks  her  descent  from  the  inhabitants  of  that  region  ;  tvU^if 
refers  to  her  language  and  education,  which,  as  was  usual  in  those 
countries  about  the  time  of  Christ,  were  Grecian. 

Ver.  23, 24. — She  prays  in  behalf  of  her  demoniac  daughter,  but 
the  Lord  refuses  her  as  a  heathen  with  the  words  OVK  dfreard^v  K, 
T.  A.  (comp.  on  Matth.  x.  5,  6).  Intentionally  and  wisely  did  the 
Saviour  confine  his  ministry  to  the  people  of  Israel.  Only  on  cer- 
tain heroes  of  the  faith  from  amidst  the  heathen  world  did  Jesus 

*  De  Wette  asserts  (on  this  passage)  "  it  is  not  said  here  that  Jesus  entered  on 
foreign  ground  with  a  view  to  exercise  his  ministry."  But  after  commencing  his  official 
career,  he  continually  exercised  it,  and  he  did  so  specially  in  the  present  case.  It  is 
thus,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  not  probable  that  he  crossed  the  boundary. 


534  MATTHEW  XV.  23-28. 

bestow  grace  as  the  representatives  of  nations  who  as  yet  were  far 
from  the  covenants  of  promise. 

Ver.  25,  26. — To  the  woman  who  still  impressively  repeated  her 
request,  Jesus  again  addressed  the  same  reply,  but  in  a  sharper 
form.  ^Representing  himself  as  the  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  God 
and  dispenser  of  all  the  heavenly  powers  of  life,  he  compares  the 
Israelites  to  the  children  of  the  family,  and  the  heathen  to  the 
dogs.  (Kvveg  is  used  contemptuously  as  at  Philip,  iii.  2.  Neither 
the  Old  Testament  nor  the  New  recognises  the  noble  nature  of  this 
animal.  Comp.  on  Luke  xvi.  21.  The  diminutive  certainly  has  a 
milder  sense.  Still  the  thought  remains  very  sharp  and  bitter,  and 
he  designs  it  to  be  so.)  [The  woman  must,  above  all,  recognise  the 
divinely  granted  prerogative  of  Israel.] 

Ver.  27. — The  woman's  faith,  however,  humbly  receives  the 
reply  in  all  its  bitterness,  and  child-like  she  takes  the  position 
assigned  her,  claiming  no  place  within  the  temple  ;  she  is  content 
to  remain  standing  as  a  door-keeper  in  the  outer  court,  and  pleads 
simply  for  that  grace  which  was  fitting  for  the  occupant  of  such  a 
station.  (Adopting  the  figure  she  entreats  a  gift  of  the  V^S 
crumbs.  The  expression  occurs  again  only  at  Luke  xvi.  21,  in 
regard  to  Lazarus  the  sick  man,  and  in  a  similar  connexion.  It  is 
from  V>/«,  to  rub  down,  to  crush  in  pieces.) 

Ver.  28. — Overcome  as  it  were  by  the  humble  faith  of  the 
heathen  woman,  the  Saviour  himself  confesses  great  is  thy  faith, 
and  straightway  faith  received  what  it  asked.  This  little  narrative 
lays  open  the  magic  that  lies  in  a  humbly-believing  heart  more 
directly  and  deeply  than  all  explanations  or  descriptions  could  do. 
Faith  and  humility  are  so  intimately  at  one,  that  neither  can  exist 
without  the  other ;  both  act  as  with  magic  power  on  the  unseen 
and  spiritual  world  ;  they  draw  the  heavenly  essence  itself  down  into 
the  sphere  of  earth.  In  this  cure  faith  is  again  obviously  seen 
not  as  knowledge,  not  as  the  upholding  of  certain  doctrines  for 
true,  but  as  a  state  of  the  mind — the  tenderest  susceptibility 
for  what  is  heavenly — the  perfect  womanhood  of  the  soul.  When 
yearning  faith,  by  coming  in  contact  with  the  object  it  longs  for, 
becomes  seeing  faith,  out  of  such  a  mental  state  there  certainly 
spring  beliefs  and  doctrines  of  all  kinds,  which,  as  being  the  pro- 
duct of  this  inward  and  immediate  operation,  may  themselves  be 
termed  faith.  Usually,  however,  the  Christian  finds  more  diffi- 
culty in  understanding  the  conduct  of  Christ  than  in  the  depth 
of  this  heathen  woman's  faith.  It  would  seem  as  if  he  who  knew 
what  was  in  man  (John  ii.  25)  must  have  been  constrained  at  once 
to  help  this  woman,  as  her  faith  could  not  have  been  concealed  from 
him ;  and  even  although  for  wise  reasons  he  was  led  to  confine  his 
ministry  to  the  Jews,  yet  as  in  other  instances  he  made  exceptions 


MATTHEW  XV.  28-31.  535 

(comp.  on  Matth.  viii.  10),  so  might  he  have  done  in  her  case  at 
once  without  laying  on  her  the  burden  of  his  severity.  Nay,  the 
severity  seems  so  very  severe,  that  it  were  difficult  to  find  a  place 
for  such  a  trait  in  the  beauteous  portraiture  of  the  mild  Son  of 
man.  It  is  Christian  experience  alone  which  opens  our  way  to  the 
right  understanding  of  this.  As  God  himself  is  compared  by  our 
Lord  to  an  unjust  judge  who  often  turns  away  the  well-grounded 
supplication  (Luke  xviii.  3,  seq.),  as  the  Lord  wrestles  with  Jacob 
at  Jacob's  ford,  and  thus  exalts  him  to  be  Israel  (Gen.  xxxii.  24, 
seq.),  as  he  seeks  to  kill  Moses  who  was  destined  to  deliver  his  people 
(Exod.  iv.  24),  so  faith  often  in  its  experience  finds  that  the  heaven 
is  of  brass  and  seems  to  despise  its  prayers.  A  similar  mode  of 
dealing  is  here  exhibited  by  the  Saviour.  The  restraining  of  his 
grace,  the  manifestation  of  a  treatment  wholly  diiferent  from  what 
the  woman  may  at  first  have  expected,  acted  as  a  check  usually 
does  on  power  when  it  really  exists ;  the  whole  inherent  energy  of 
her  living  faith  broke  forth,  and  the  Saviour  suffered  himself  to  be 
overcome  by  her  as  he  had  when  wrestling  with  Jacob.  In  this 
mode  then  of  Christ's  giving  an  answer  to  prayer  we  are  to  trace 
only  another  form  of  his  love.  Where  faith  is  weak,  he  anticipates 
and  comes  to  meet  it ;  where  faith  is  strong,  he  holds  himself  aloof 
that  it  may  in  itself  be  carried  to  perfection.* 

Ver.  29-31. — According  to  both  Evangelists,  Jesus  after  this 
left  the  western  boundary  of  Palestine,  and  turned  back  to  the  sea 
of  Grenesareth.  (As  to  A£«a7ro/Uf,  see  on  Matth  iv.  25.)  Without 
marking  more  closely  the  connexion,  local  or  chronological,  the 
narrative  ends  in  one  of  those  general  concluding  formulae,  which 
plainly  shew  that  the  author  never  intended  to  produce  a  history 
marked  by  chronological  arrangement.  To  me  it  seems  not  unlikely, 
from  the  frequency  with  which  such  forms  of  conclusion  occur  in 
Matthew  (comp.  iv.  23-25  ;  ix.  8,  26,  31,  35,  36 ;  xiv.  34-36),  and 
their  uniformity,  that  he  interwove  into  his  work  minor  treatises 
which  had  perhaps  at  an  earlier  period  been  written  down  by  him- 
self^?] There  is  a  peculiarity  in  the  use  of  icvhkog  which  occurs  in 
this  passage  in  the  enumeration  of  the  >  suiferers  who  assembled 
around  Jesus.  The  same  word  is  found  at  Matth.  xviii.  8,  con- 
joined as  in  this  case  with  #wA6$-,  and  there  it  obviously  means 
one  maimed.  But  never  in  any  other  case  is  it  recorded  as  an 
express  fact  that  Christ  really  restored  bodily  members  which  had 
been  cut  off,  and  a  cure  of  this  kind  would  ill  accord  with  his 
usual  mode  of  healing.  It  is  better  therefore  to  take  nv/iXog  here 
in  the  sense  usually  assigned  it  by  profane  writers,  viz.  :  bent, 
crooked,  bowed  down.  As  the  denial  of  Christ's  higher,  heavenly, 
miraculous  power  is  an  error,  so  it  contradicts  the  gospel  narrative 
°  As  to  the  faith  of  the  woman,  in  behalf  of  her  daughter,  see  on  Matth.  xvii.  14,  seq. 


536  MATTHEW  XV.  29-31 ;   MARK  VII.  32-37. 

to  hold  that  this  miraculous  power  put  forth  its  energy  without 
internal  law  or  order,  to  guide  its  manifestations.  Never  does 
the  Lord  create  members  to  replace  those  which  had  been  cut  off, 
but  he  heals  those  which  had  been  injured :  never  does  he  create 
bread  absolutely  from  nothing  (without  a  previous  substratum),  but 
he  increases  that  which  previously  existed.  The  question,  then, 
whether  he  was  not  able  to  have  done  such  things,  must  be  cast 
aside,  as  entirely  impertinent ;  it  is  enough  for  us  that  he  did  them 
not.  Still  the  principle  stands  fast  which  is  implied  in  the  very 
idea  of  Christ's  Divine  nature,  that  boundless  as  was  his  power,  it 
was  yet  perfectly  regulated  by  laws,  inasmuch  as  the  Spirit  himself 
is  law,  and  all  spiritual  phenomena  are  embraced  within  a  cycle  of 
higher  and  heavenly  laws,  whose  revolution  constitutes  the  system 
of  nature.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  short  narrative  of  the  heal- 
ing of  the  man  who  was  deaf  and  dumb  (tcoxftbg  juoyt/iaAof,  i.  e.} 
hard  of  hearing,  and  for  this  reason  as  not  hearing  his  own 
voice,  speaking  unintelligibly  ;  according  to  ver.  35,  therefore,  he  at 
once  spoke  on  his  hearing  being  restored),  which  Mark  here  inserts 
(vii.  32-37),  and  which  he  alone  records.  Minute  and  circumstan- 
tial in  his  narrative,  he  recounts  here,  as  in  the  similar  account  of 
healing  the  blind  man  (viii.  22-26),  many  particulars  as  to  the  ex- 
ternal mode  of  Christ's  cures  which  bring  them  vividly  before  the 
mind's  eye.  With  these  notices  may  be  compared  the  account 
of  the  disciples  performing  cures  with  oil  (which  Mark  vi.  13  alone 
gives),  and  the  narrative  in  John  ix.  6,  of  Christ's  applying 
spittle  in  the  same  way  when  healing  one  born  blind.  The  oil  is 
to  be  regarded  as  merely  an  ordinary  outward  means  of  cure  (Luke 
x.  34),  which  the  disciples,  distrusting,  as  it  were,  the  full  effi- 
cacy of  their  miraculous  powers  (Matth.  xvii.  20),  applied  at  the 
same  time.  It  is  a  wholly  unscriptural  view  that  Christ,  along 
with  their  heavenly  miraculous  power,  had  enjoined  his  disciples  to 
employ  the  expedients  of  domestic  medicine  :  he  rather  permitted 
them  the  use  of  the  oil  in  accommodation  to  their  weakness.  Leav- 
ing this  out  of  view,  there  remain  in  these  narratives  the  following 
peculiarities.  (1.)  It  is  a  new  thing  that  Jesus  should  take  those 
who  are  about  to  be  healed  apart  by  themselves  (Mark  vii.  33, 
aTroAajSojUevof  avrbv  drro  rov  O%AOV  /car'  Idiav ;  viii.  23,  e£//yay£v  avrov 
££(,)  rrjg  tfwp/?).  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  this  was  done  from 
anxiety  lest  the  people  on  seeing  his  treatment  of  the  sick  should  be 
led  into  various  superstitions.  This  would  have  applied  equally  to 
the  sick  themselves  who  belonged  to  the  people,  and  shared  their 
views.  A  single  word,  moreover,  would  have  provided  against  such 
superstition.  It  is  better  to  seek  the  ground  of  it  in  the  personal 
interests  of  the  sick.  As  their  moral  healing  was  the  ultimate  end 
of  their  physical  cure,  the  Saviour  ordered  everything  external  so  as 


MARK  VII.  32-37.  537 

to  contribute  to  that  object.  Amidst  the  din  of  popular  tumult 
beneficial  impressions  could  with  far  more  difficulty  be  made  on 
them.  And  with  this  also  agrees  the  command  given  to  both,  that 
they  should  preserve  silence  as  to  their  cure.  (Comp.  vii.  36  ;  viii. 
26.  See  what  is  said  on  this  at  Matth.  viii.  4.)  (2.)  Another  pecu- 
liarity is  the  gradually  advancing  process  of  cure  in  the  case  of  the 
blind  man.  According  to  Mark  viii.  24,  after  the  first  touch  of  Jesus 
he  saw  darkly  and  obscurely.  "  I  see  men  as  trees  (the  power  of 
measuring  extension  by  the  eye  was  probably  as  yet  wanting)  walk- 
ing." After  the  second  touch  he  was  wholly  restored.  Obviously, 
therefore,  the  cures  performed  by  Christ  were  no  magical  transac- 
tions, but  real  processes.  In  the  case  of  the  blind  man  the  course 
of  the  cure  may  have  been  retarded  for  this  reason,  that  his  disease 
was  deeply  seated,  and  a  too  rapid  process  of  recovery  might  have 
been  injurious.  We  remarked  something  of  the  same  kind  in  deal- 
ing with  the  history  of  the  G-ergesene  (Matth.  viii.  28),  from  whom 
the  demon  did  not  depart  till  the  command  of  Jesus  had  been  twice 
given.  (3.)  The  application  of  spittle  is  peculiar  to  these  narratives, 
which  is  also  mentioned  again  at  John  ix.  6.  In  regard  to  this,  we 
must  at  once  reject,  as  unworthy  of  the  dignity  of  Christ,  the 
opinion  which  holds  that  he  was  himself  misled  by  the  popular 
notion  that  attributed  to  the  spittle  healing  virtues,  and  which, 
further,  infers  from  this  that  the  thing  here  recorded  must  be  under- 
stood even  in  cases  where  it  is  not  mentioned,  and  so  would  trans- 
form Christ  into  an  ordinary  physician,  acquainted  with  the  use  of 
certain  remedies.  We  are  equally  to  reject  the  other  opinion  that 
Christ  employed  this  means  in  order  to  aid  the  weak  faith  of  those 
who  were  to  be  healed.*  For  on  the  one  hand  the  Saviour  does  not 
employ  means  to  remedy  weakness  of  faith,  and  on  the  other,  it  is 
incongruous  to  endeavour  by  means  so  purely  external  to  reach  a 
spiritual  want.  We  must  therefore  have  looked  on  the  employment 
of  the  spittle  as  exercising  real  influence,  even  though  we  had  been 
unable  to  trace  in  it  any  link  of  connexion.  But  as  we  already 
observed  that  the  laying  on  of  Christ's  hands  (so  here  the  holding 
of  his  finger  to  eye  and  ear)  must,  as  it  were,  be  considered  as  the 
medium  of  conveyance  for  spiritual  power  (it  is  only  in  particular 
cases  that  this  power  imparts  itself  from  a  distance,  and  without 
visible  means  of  communication  ;  see  on  Matth.  viii.  10),  so  it  is  in 
a  way  analogous  to  this  that  we  are  to  look  on  the  use  of  his  own 
spittle.  (Mark  vii.  34,  gives  in  Aramaic  the  exclamation  of  Christ, 
I(jxf>a6d — Siavoi^OrfTi,  be  opened.  It  is  the  authoritative  summons  of 

*  In  the  case  of  the  deaf  and  dumb,  however,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  the 
actions  of  Christ  (the  touching  of  his  ears  and  tongue,  the  looking  up  to  heaven),  were 
obviously  calculated  to  make  him  aware  of  what  was  about  to  be  done  with  him  in  order 
to  rouse  his  faith,  which  could  not  be  done  in  his  case  by  words. 


538  MARK  VII.  32-37;   MATTHEW  XV.  32-39. 

Christ  adapted  to  the  present  case  ;  it  is  the  expression  of  his  Divine 
will,  of  whose  fulfilment  that  Son  who  had  called  on  the  Father 
[el$  rbv  oipavbv  dvapktya?  iariva%K,  ver.  34],  was  fully  assured.  The 
form  of  the  word  is  the  imperative  of  the  Aramaic  conjugation 
Ethpael,  e<jxjxi6d  =  Idtyadd  [in  Syriac  nnsns  from  the  root  n^]. — Ver. 
37.  The  exclamation  «aA<5$-  -ndvra  TrenoirjKe,  he  hath  done  all  things 
well,  almost  reminds  us  of  the  history  of  creation,  where  it  is  said 
rrdvra,  oaa  enoirjae,  naXa.  /Uav,  all  that  he  had  made  ivas  very  good, 
Gen.  i.  31.  The  ministry  of  the  Messiah  seems  to  be  viewed  as  a 
KCUVT)  KTWTI?  =  nan  h  MJ7»,  neio  creation.  According  to  Mark  viii. 
22,  the  healing  of  the  blind  man  took  place  at  Bethsaida  [see  as  to 
it  on  Matth.  xi.  21],  by  which  we  are  here  probably  to  understand 
the  place  of  that  name  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  sea  of  Genesareth. 
Yet  is  the  description  of  the  locality  even  in  Mark  indefinite,  so  that 
we  cannot  with  certainty  decide  where  the  cure  took  place. — Ver. 
25.  The  expression inoirjaev  avrbv  dvafiktyai,  is  not  to  be  referred  to 
the  restoration  of  the  sight,  that  is  afterwards  expressed  by  drroKadio- 
raodcu,  in  integrum  restitui.  Rather  is  the  iroieiv  dvafiktycu  equiva- 
lent to  the  Hebrew  Hiphil,  "  he  caused  him,  after  laying  his  hands 
on  him  the  second  time,  to  look  up/'  and  then  he  saw  rrj/tavy&s. 
That  word,  which  is  found  only  here,  literally  means  "  shining  afar, 
radiant,"  from  rJJAe,  in  the  distance.  Here,  as  shown  by  the  con- 
nexion, it  means  "plainly,  distinctly.") 


§  29.  FEEDING.  OF  THE  FOUR  THOUSAND. 

(Matth.  xv.  32-39  ;  Mark  viii.  1-10.) 

The  account  which  follows  of  feeding  the  four  thousand  is 
attached  by  Matthew  to  the  preceding  context  without  any  mark  to 
determine  the  time  when  it  happened,  and  by  Mark  with  the 
indefinite  words  &v  iiceivaig  -alg  -r^epaig,  in  those  days.  The  latter 
gives  us  once  more  separate  minute  traits,  which  make  the  nar- 
rative more  graphic,  as  for  example,  ver.  3,  "  some  of  them  have 
come  from  afar,"  and  in  ver.  1  the  amplification  of  Matthew's  brief 
expressions.  The  latter  alone  informs  us  that  the  number  of  four 
thousand  is  reckoned  apart  from  the  women  and  children  (ver.  38). 
The  narrative  itself  certainly  contains  no  new  points  when  compared 
with  the  first  account  of  feeding  the  five  thousand,  Matth.  xiv.  13, 
seq.  The  single  circumstance  to  be  inquired  into,  therefore,  is 
whether  we  are  to  regard  the  entire  occurrence  as  distinct  from  the 
other,  or  whether,  by  a  mistake  of  Matthew  (and  after  him  of 
Mark),  the  same  instance  of  feeding  has  been  twice  recorded.  This 
latter  view  has  been  put  forward  by  Schleiermacher  (on  Luke,  p. 


MATTHEW  XV.  32-39.  539 

137),  and  Schultz  (on  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  311).  De  Wette  also 
and  others  see  in  this  second  account  a  repetition  of  the  first  fact 
drawn  from  tradition.  The  chief  ground  for  this  supposition  would 
seem  to  lie  in  the  circumstance  that  we  cannot  conceive  how  the 
disciples,  if  they  had  once  had  experience  of  such  a  miracle,  could 
ever  in  similar  circumstances  have  asked  unbelievingly  -rrodev  r/jutv  iv 
eprjfiia  aproi  rooovroi  &ore  xoprdoai  6%kov  TOOOVTOV,  whence  have  we 
in  the  desert  so  many  loaves  ?  etc.,  (ver.  33.)  But  less  weight  is  to  be 
attached  to  this  remark  when  we  find  that  on  various  occasions  the 
disciples  forget  things  which  it  should  have  been  impossible  for  them 
to  forget.  For  example,  the  plainest  declarations  as  to  Christ's  suf- 
ferings and  death  they  seem  never  to  have  heard  when  the  event 
really  took  place.  Assuming  then  that  some  considerable  time 
elapsed  between  these  two  miraculous  entertainments  ;  that  mean- 
while they  had  frequently  met  with  cases  in  which  themselves 
and  those  around  them  had  suffered  momentary  want  (take,  e.  g., 
the  plucking  of  the  ears  of  corn),  but  in  which  the  Lord  did 
not  choose  thus  to  interpose  his  aid,  we  may  perhaps  conceive  that 
in  the  moment  of  feeling  want,  it  did  not  occur  to  the  disciples 
that  the  Saviour  would  be  pleased  a  second  time  thus  to  manifest 
his  power.  We  are  the  more  disposed  to  this  explanation,  as 
there  is  otherwise  not  the  slightest  improbability  of  the  repetition 
under  analogous  circumstances,  of  the  same  fact,  any  more  than  that 
healing  processes  were  similarly  repeated.  To  admit,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  narrative  in  this  case  is  not  authentic,  is  to  open  the 
way  for  consequences  affecting  the  authority  of  the  Gospel  which 
a  Christian  mind  could  never  admit,  unless  they  rested  on  such 
sure  historical  proofs,  as  are  here  utterly  wanting.  A  new  and  fully 
detailed  history  of  events  which  absolutely  did  not  take  place  could 
be  given  neither  by  an  apostle  of  the  Lord,  nor  by  an  assistant 
whose  gospel  rested  on  apostolic  authority.  Still  less  could  both 
narrators  subsequently  (Matth.  xvi.  9,  10  ;  Mark  viii.  19,  20),  put 
into  the  mouth  of  our  Lord  himself  an  allusion  to  an  event  which 
had  never  happened.*  If  the  narrative  forced  us  to  such  assump- 
tions as  this,  the  authority  of  both  gospels  would  be  overthrown. 
The  supposition  that  a  fully  detailed  narrative  of  fact  is  a  pure  in- 

*  The  passage  here  quoted  is  also  of  importance  for  our  object  in  this  respect,  that 
the  remark  of  the  disciples,  <>-i  aprovf  ova  eAujSo/nev  (Matth.  xvi.  7),  shews  that  even 
after  the  second  miraculous  feeding  the  disciples  could  not  imagine  that  their  being  in  the 
company  of  the  Son  of  man  made  it  needless  for  them  to  take  provisions  for  the  body. 
Jesus  finds  it  necessary  to  rebuke  them  for  this  unbelief,  and  reminds  them  of  both  mirac- 
ulous entertainments.  One  can  hardly  conceive  a  stronger  proof  that  the  second  feeding 
is  authentic.  Meanwhile  superficial  modern  criticism  knows  how  to  set  it  quite  easily 
aside  by  the  cheap  assertion  that  it  was  only  after  the  formation  of  the  two  fabulous  re- 
ports as  to  the  feeding,  that  this  whole  conversation  was — invented.  At  this  rate  any 
fact  one  chooses  may  be  struck  out  of  the  narrative. 


540  MATTHEW  XV.  32-39. 

vention  is  quite  another  thing  from  the  admission  of  some  trifling 
historical  oversight — for  example,  whether  there  were  one  or  two 
blind  men.  Add  to  this,  that  on  closer  examination  the  inven- 
tion of  the  fact  by  tradition  is  wholly  improbable.  For  in  the  first 
place,  if  this  second  narrative  of  feeding  the  people  had  owed 
its  origin  to  tradition,  much  would  have  been  added  to  it  by 
way  of  embellishment.  The  unadorned  style  in  which  the  second 
event  is  told,  precisely  as  was  the  former  even  in  the  separate  words, 
vouches  for  its  apostolic  origin.  Nay,  this  narrative,  so  far  from  any 
effort  to  display  the  fact  in  brighter  colours,  sets  it  forth  as  of  less 
importance.  In  the  former  case  there  were  5000,  here  only  4000, 
and  yet  there  are  here  seven  loaves  while  formerly  there  were  only 
five,  although  the  less  the  number  of  loaves  the  more  marvellous 
must  the  miracle  appear.  It  is  precisely  in  these  little  circum- 
stances that  the  handiwork  of  tradition  would  most  easily  be 
detected.  What  could  any  one  gain  by  inventing  the  account  of 
Christ's  having  fed  4000  men,  when  in  fact  he  had  already  fed 
5000  ?  Not  thus  are  framed  the  fictions  of  tradition.  If  we 
had  read  here  of  Christ  having  fed  10,000  men  with  one  loaf,  the 
probability  of  forgery  had  been  greater.*  Is  any  one  ready  to  say 
that  this  second  fact  may  be  the  real  one  while  the  former  is  the 
fictitious,  in  which  the  number  of  the  fed  is  increased  and  of  the 
loaves  diminished?  This  however  is  the  most  improbable  of  all 
views  of  it — that  any  one  should  place  last  the  real  fact  as  being 
the  less  important  and  put  first  the  false.  Obviously  an  unconscien- 
tious  narrator  will  overdo  the  truth  itself,  and  for  this  reason  he 
places  last  the  invented  fact  as  being  the  most  striking.  We  can 
discover  then  only  proofs  for  the  authenticity  of  this  second  feeding 
as  narrated,  none  whatever  to  shew  that  it  is  spurious  ;  for,  in 
regard  to  the  disciples,  we  can  easily  admit  that  previously  to  their 
being  furnished  with  power  from  on  high  their  memory  was  often 
weak  ;  indeed  they  themselves  state  quite  plainly  that  it  was  so 
with  them.  They  walked  in  a  new  world  full  of  spiritual  and 
bodily  wonders,  amidst  which  they  could  not  find  themselves  at 
home  until  the  Spirit  came  upon  them,  and  brought  to  their  minds 
all  things  that  the  Lord  had  said  to  them  and  done.  (John  xiv. 
26.)  (As  to  Magdala  [Matth.  xv.  39],  and  Dalmanutha  [Mark  viii 
10],  see  on  Matth.  xvi.  5.) 

*  "With  great  naivete  Strauss  (vol  ii.,  p.  203)  describes  these  as  "  eager  remarks  into 
which  one  had  better  not  enter."  By  all  means,  for  this  wanton  critic  had  nothing  to 
allege  against  them,  except  that  the  first  feeding  also  was  a  myth,  i.  e.,  a  lie.  Thus, 
with  this  man,  one  lie  is  built  upon  another.  One  who  honestly  calls  things  by  their 
right  names,  which  certainly  makes  a  fatal  impression,  does  not,  Strauss  thinks,  know  how 
to  penetrate  the  depths  of  the  mythic  view. 


MATTHEW  XVI.  1-6.  541 

§  30.  WARNING  AGAINST  THE  LEAVEN  OF  THE  PHARISEES. 

(Matth.  xvi.  1-12  ;  Mark  viii.  11-21.) 

Along  with  his  narrative  of  the  second  miraculous  feeding,  the 
Evangelist  conjoins  the  account  of  an  incident  which  shews  the 
weakness  of  the  disciples.  When  Christ  used  the  words  npoae^rs 
dnb  rrj(;  t,v\Lr\q  TWV  QapLaaiww,  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees, 
they  thought  they  were  reproved  on  account  of  having  forgotten  to 
take  oread,  while  the  Saviour  was  thinking  only  of  the  spiritual 
influence  put  forth  by  the  Pharisees.  Everything  in  this  section  is 
connected  with  Christ's  words  of  rebuke  and  warning  against  the 
Pharisees ;  but  since  neither  in  the  preceding  nor  following  context 
are  they  further  spoken  of,  it  is  rendered  probable  that  the  evange- 
list merely  points  out  the  occasion  when  those  words,  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  account  of  the  feeding,  and  on  which  he  laid 
such  peculiar  stress,  were  spoken.  It  can  moreover  excite  no  sur- 
prise that  the  Pharisees,  when  they  demand  of  Jesus  a  sign  (and  a 
sign  from  heaven  too,  Luke  xi.  16),  should  have  been  rebuked  in 
terms  similar  to  those  of  Matth.  xii.  38,  seq.,  by  a  reference  to  the 
sign  of  Jonas.  There  is  nothing  to  justify  the  assumption  (which 
Schulz  defends  loco  citat.)  that  Jesus  spoke  the  words  only  once, 
but  that  the  narrator,  drawing  from  impure  tradition,  has  twice 
recorded  them.  It  is  possible  that  Matthew  here  incorporates  por- 
tions of  discourses  originally  uttered  in  another  connexion  (for 
example,  verses  2,  3,  which  are  given  by  Matthew  alone,  but  which 
yet  appear  to  me  to  be  quite  as  appropriately  placed  here  as  at 
Luke  xii.  55,  56,  where  see  the  exposition  of  the  words),  but  the 
whole  is  to  be  viewed  as  a  new  occurrence.  For  if  the  Pharisees 
more  than  once  eagerly  desired  a  sign  from  heaven — which  from 
their  devotedness  to  externals,  may  easily  be  supposed — it  is  equally 
conceivable,  that  the  Saviour  more  than  once  addressed  them  as  a 
yeved  TiwT/pd  /cat  /zoi^a/lfc,  evil  and  adulterous  generation,  and  alluded 
to  the  great  Jonah-sign.  (For  the  exposition  of  Matth.  xvi.  1-4, 
see  on  Matth.  xii.  38,  seq.) 

The  peculiar  essence  of  the  narrative  Mark,  as  is  clear,  has 
rightly  seized.  He  brings  forward  with  great  care,  as  the  essential 
point,  all  that  relates  to  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  the  disci- 
ples (viii.  13,  seq).  They  pass  together  across  the  sea  to  the  further 
shore.  This  points  us  back  to  Matth.  xv.  39  ;  Mark  viii.  10,  where 
Magdala  and  Dalmanutha  are  mentioned  as  the  places  to  which 
Christ  betook  himself.  The  latter  of  these  places  is  mentioned  only 
here,  but  it  lay  probably  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Magdala,  which  is 


542  MATTHEW  XVI.  1-7. 

named  by  Matthew.  Maydahd  (from  Vt-»a  a  tower,  for  which  reason 
it  is  not  to  be  written  fiayaddv  or  jtmyedav),  lay  on  the  eastern  shore 
of  the  sea,  in  the  district  of  the  Gadarenes.  One  of  the  Marys  (with 
the  surname  of  Magdald)  was  undoubtedly  a  native  of  this  town. 
On  their  voyage  across,  the  conversation  here  recorded  took  place, 
and  to  their  accounts  of  it  both  Evangelists  prefix  the  remark  that 
the  disciples  had  forgotten  to  take  bread.  (The  careful  Mark  even 
adds  that  they  had  only  one  loaf,  d  ^  £va  aprov  OVK  el%ov  fied'  KCLVT&V. 
Such  traits  indicate  the  extreme  accuracy  of  the  sources  of  informa- 
tion employed  by  Mark  ;  it  is  not  thus  that  myths  are  formed.  It 
would  ill  accord  also  with  the  idea  that  the  second  narrative  of  feed- 
ing the  multitude  is  fictitious.)  The  remark  of  Jesus,  6pare  teal 
TT^ooe^ere  dnb  rr}g  ^v\ir\q  r&v  (baptoaiuv,  take  heed  and  beware  of  the 
leaven,  etc.,  must  be  accounted  for,  and  for  this  reason  did  the  nar- 
rators prefix  the  request  for  a  miracle  which  shortly  before  the 
Pharisees  had  addressed  vto  Jesus. 

An  apparent  contradiction  seems  to  arise  between  Matth.  xvi.  6 
and  Mark  viii.  15,  inasmuch  as  the  former  conjoins  the  Sadducees,  the 
latter  Herod,  with  the  Pharisees.  Herod,  however,  stands  merely  for 
his  party  (Matth.  xxii.  16  ;  Mark  iii.  6),  in  which  the  laxity  of  the 
Sadducees  in  moral  and  religious  opinion,  was  mixed  up  with  poli- 
tical objects.  (Comp.  on  Matth.  xiv.  2,  which  passage  does  not  con- 
tradict this  view.)  If,  therefore,  the  Sadducees  and  Herodians  are 
not  identical,  yet  are  they  nearly  akin — doctrine  holding  the  more 
prominent  place  with  the  former,  politics  with  tfye  latter.  Against 
their  entire  scope  and  influence  the  Saviour  directs  his  warning. 
For  although  #>p?,  leaven,  is  immediately  explained  at  Matth.  xvi. 
12,  as  dtdaxrj,  doctrine,  yet  this  is  not  to  be  regarded  separately  from 
their  entire  moral  condition  ;  for,  outwardly  considered,  there  was 
much  truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  (Matth.  xxiii.  3).  Their 
doctrine,  teaching,  was  merely  that  which  came  forth  from  them, 
and  consequently  it  was  that  which,  as  it  were,  infected  others  and 
spread  the  plague  of  these  men.  At  Luke  xii.  1,  therefore,  it  is 
said  most  correctly  "the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  is  hypocrisy" 
(//  ^v\it\  T&V  Qapiaaiuv  iorlv  vnoKpiais) ,  for  with  them  the  danger 
lay  in  their  hypocrisy,  with  the  Sadducees  in  the  Epicurean  pur- 
suit of  enjoyment — with  both  in  their  alienation  from  God,  and 
mental  idolatry.  The  term  leaven  belongs  to  those  figurative 
expressions  in  Scripture  which  may  be  applied  in  either  of  two 
opposite  ways.  (See  on  Matth.  xiii,  33.)  The  application  of  it  to 
the  corrupting  (fermentation-causing)  element  of  evil,  is  the  original 
one.  It  rests  even  on  Old  Testament  usage,  the  purification  of  the 
house  from  leaven,  for  the  paschal  feast  is  the  symbol  of  inward 
purification  and  sanctification  (1  Cor.  v.  7). 

Ver.  7. — The  disciples  who  lived  as  yet  rather  in  the  world  of 


MATTHEW  XVI.  7-13.  543 

sense  than  of  spirit,  mistook  the  connexion  of  Christ's  remark  with 
his  former  conversation  with  the  Pharisees.  They  did  seek  for  some 
connexion,  hut  permitted  themselves  at  once  to  make  a  transition 
from  the  leaven  to  the  bread.  They  attributed  to  Jesus,  doubtless, 
their  Jewish  prepossessions  as  to  food  (that  Jews  ought  not  to  eat 
with  heathen),  and  looking  to  the  hostile  relation  in  which  he  stood 
to  the  Pharisees,  they  deemed  that  he  meant  to  prohibit  their 
receiving  food  from  them.  This  took  place  internally  (dieXoyifrvTo 
iv  tavTolcf),  and  found  utterance  in  the  words,  "  It  is  because  we 
took  no  bread"  (rdvrd  iariv  a  Aeyet)  on  aprovf  OVK  Ikdfiofiev.  The 
whole  is  so  drawn  from  life,  that  fiction  derived  from  later  tradition 
is  utterly  out  of  the  question.  This  occurrence  also  supports  most 
decisively  the  second  account  of  feeding  the  multitude. 

The  Saviour  rebukes  their  weak  faith,  and  reminds  them  of  the 
two  visible  proofs  of  help  received  from  him  in  time  of  need.  Out- 
ward bread,  the  Saviour  means  to  say,  would  not  fail  them,  only  let 
them  not  slight  the  enjoyment  of  the  true  and  pure  bread  of  life — 
that  would  be  the  surest  preservative  against  hankering  after  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees.  (Mark  expands  the  discourse  further ; 
Matthew  gives  shortly  and  concisely  its  essence.  We  might  say 
that  Mark  rather  rewrote  and  expanded  than  epitomised  Matthew.) 


§  31.  CONFESSION  OF   THE  DISCIPLES.     PROPHECY  OF  JESUS  RE- 
SPECTING His  OWN  DEATH. 

(Matth.  xvi.  13-28 ;  Mark  viii.  27 — ix.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  18-27.) 

Matthew  and  Mark  transfer  the  scene  of  the  following  narrative 
into  the  region  of  Csesarea  Philippi.  (The  town  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  Csesarea  Stratonis,  which  lay  on  the  sea.  [Acts  xxiii. 
23,  seq.]  Caesarea,  called  Philippi  from  the  tetrarch  of  that  name 
who  enlarged  the  city,  lay  on  the  north-east  side  of  Palestine 
[Joseph.  Antiq.  xviii.  2,  1].  It  was  not  far  from  Magdala  and 
Gerasa.  Originally  the  town  was  called  Paneas.  Philip,  in  honour 
of  the  emperor,  named  it  Kataapeta,  as  Bethsaida  was,  in  honour  of 
the  emperor's  sister,  called  'lov/lta^-.  [Joseph,  ibid.])  Luke  gives 
no  note  to  mark  the  time,  but  subjoins  this  incident  immediately  to 
his  account  of  the  first  feeding  of  the  multitude.  Schleiermaeher 
(loco  citat.  p.  138)  draws  from  this  an  inference  unfavourable  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  narrative  of  the  second  feeding  as  given  by 
Matthew  and  Mark.  Could  we  cut  out  it  and  all  connected  with  it, 
he  remarks,  Matthew  and  Luke  would  appear  to  harmonize  in 
respect  to  the  chorography.  The  supposition  that  the  second  feed- 
ing must  be  transferred  to  the  western  side  of  the  sea  (while  the 


644  MATTHEW  XVI.  13,  14. 

first  took  place  on  the  eastern  shore),  certainly  appears  according  to 
Von  Eaumer's  remark  (Palestine,  p.  101),  to  be  untenable.  Mean- 
while what  has  been  already  advanced  should  be  sufficient  to  shew 
the  impossibility  of  identifying  the  two,  and  thus  no  weight  is  to  be 
laid  further  on  the  circumstance  to  which  Schleiermacher  has  drawn 
attention.  In  the  important  narrative  which  follows,  Matthew  ap- 
pears as  the  leading  historian.  He  subjoins  (xvi.  17-19),  to  the  con- 
fession of  the  disciples,  through  Peter  as  their  organ,  a  remarkable 
declaration  by  the  Lord,  as  to  which  the  two  others  are  silent.* 
Mark,  it  is  true,  once  more  subjoins  in  his  account  several  minute 
and  peculiar  traits  (for  instance  ver.  27,  that  the  conversation  was 
carried  on  even  during  the  journey),  but  into  the  essential  meaning 
of  the  remarkable  transaction  he  gives  no  deeper  insight. 

Ver.  13,  14. — The  conversation  on  the  road  to  Caesarea  (l-v  -rg 
6<5o>  Mark  viii.  27),  begins  with  the  question  of  Jesus,  riva  jue  /Uyov- 
GLV  ol  dvdouTToi,  who  do  men  say  that  I  am  ?  (some  manuscripts  have 
falsely  left  out  jue,  it  was  omitted  simply  because  of  the  following  ex- 
pression, rbv  vlbv  rov  dvdpu-rrov,  which  contains  more  closely  the  defi- 
nition of  jt*e.  The  whole  clause  is  to  be  taken  thus,  ^e  rov  vlbv  rov 
dvdpu-nov  [<!>$•  oldare]  ovra.  Then  would  the  disciples  be  led  forward 
from  the  idea  of  the  vlbg  rov  dv6pa)irov}  to  that  of  the  vlb$  rov  Qeov. 
[V.  16.])  The  question  itself  undoubtedly  had  its  immediate  ground 
in  the  special  circumstances  of  the  time.  Its  object,  however,  was  to 
awaken  the  disciples  to  profounder  views  of  the  dignity  of  Christ. 
According  to  the  disciples,  then,  some  merely  saw  in  Jesus,  John 
the  Baptist  (risen  from  the  dead),  others  Elias.  (Compare  on 
Matth.  xiv.  2,  and  the  parallel  passages,  Mark  vi.  15,  Luke  ix.  8.) 
These  men  therefore  did  not  see  in  Jesus  the  Messiah  himself,  but 
certainly  they  saw  a  person  who  stood  in  close  connexion  with  his 
(speedily  to  be  expected)  advent.  (According  to  Malachi  iv.  5,  the 
appearance  of  Elias  was  expected  before  the  Messiah.  See  more 
particularly  as  to  this,  on  Matth.  xvii.  10,  seq.,  and  Luke  i.  17.) 
There  were,  however,  still  others  who  held  Jesus  to  be  Jeremiah,  or 
some  one  of  the  old  prophets  (upo^r^  Tl$  r^v  dpxaiuv,  Luke  ix.  8- 
19).  All  viewed  him  thus  as  a  remarkable  phenomenon,  and  placed 
him  at  least  in  close  connexion,  according  to  their  several  prevalent 
ideas,  with  the  coming  Messiah.  They  did  not  declare  their  belief 
in  him  as  the  Messiah  himself,  doubtless  for  this  reason,  that  the 
whole  ministry  of  Christ  appeared  to  them  to  stand  in  contradiction 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  Mark,  whose  Gospel,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  ancient 
church,  rested  on  the  authority  of  Peter  (comp.  Introd.,  §  5),  should  be  the  writer  who 
omits  to  notice  the  important  place  which  Peter  held.  One  might  have  attributed  this  to 
modest  reserve,  were  it  not  that  in  the  passage  parallel  to  Matth.  xiv.  29-31,  Mark  has 
also  passed  over  in  silence  a  special  communication  respecting  Peter,  which,  however,  is 
not  to  his  praise.  The  supposition  that  Mark  in  writing  his  Gospel,  used  that  of  Matthew, 
can  in  truth  with  great  difficulty  be  reconciled  with  these  facts. 


MATTHEW  XVI.  14-16.  545 

to  their  Messianic  expectations.  The  supposed  reappearance  in 
Christ  of  one  of  the  ancient  prophets  is  doubtless  to  be  understood 
of  a  belief  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  in  their  actual  resurrection,  not 
of  the  reappearance  of  their  souls  in  his  person  (according  to  the 
doctrine  of  ^erKfi^v^oig  or  pereva^druai^.  For  since,  according  to 
Jewish  opinion,  the  first  resurrection  (see  on  Luke  xiv.  14,  com- 
pared with  Eev.  xx.  5)  was  connected  with  the  appearance  of  the 
Messiah  (his  first  appearance  in  humiliation  not  being  dissevered 
from  his  second  in  glory,  but  associated  with  it  as  the  prophets  do), 
and  the  setting  up  of  his  kingdom,  so  the  idea  very  readily  suggest- 
ed itself  that  forerunners  of  the  resurrection  would  precede  that 
mighty  period.  From  no  express  statements  of  the  Old  Testament, 
except  in  the  case  of  Elias,  did  the  opinion  derive  any  support,  for 
unless  violence  were  done  to  it,  the  reference  to  the  passage,  Isaiah 
lii.  6,  seq.,  is  inapplicable.  In  the  New  Testament  also  there  is 
nothing  to  favour  it  (see  however,  on  Moses  and  Elias  at  Matth. 
xvii.  4),  and  we  can  attribute  it  therefore  only  to  Kabbinical  legends. 
Around  the  person  of  Jeremiah  especially  there  had  gathered  a  circle 
of  traditions  (comp.  2  Maccab.  ii.  7,  8  ;  xv.14)  ;  they  termed  him,  by 
way  of  eminence,  rrpo</>7?T?/f  rov  Qeov,  prophet  of  God.  Isaiah  was  also 
named  among  the  forerunners  of  the  Messiah,  4  Esra  ii.  18.  (Comp. 
on  all  connected  with  this,  Berthold  Christ.  Jud.  §  15,  p.  58,  seq.) 

Ver.  15,  16. — Alongside  of  these  opinions  of  the  people  re- 
specting Jesus,  is  presented  that  of  the  disciples.  They  declare 
him  to  be  the  Xpiarog  =  rriwa,  Messiah,  himself,  and  thus  dissever 
themselves  from  the  popular  views,  which  held  him  to  be  a  fore- 
runner of  the  Messiah.  How  far,  however,  it  was  this  confession  of 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  which  gave  occasion  to  the  following  words  of 
Christ,  [laKapiot;  el  K.  r.  A.,  blessed  art  thou,  etc.,  is  not  very  obvious, 
for  they  were  already  spoken  respecting  the  disciples  when  they  first 
attached  themselves  to  Jesus.  (John  i.  41,  42.)  The  whole  relation 
of  the  Saviour  to  his  disciples,  which  must  be  viewed  as  implying 
an  ever  advancing  development,  requires  that  in  this  case,  their 
confession  should  have  been  fuller  and  more  complete  than  before. 
For  the  understanding  then  of  this  remarkable  passage,  Matthew  is 
specially  important,  who,  though  deficient  in  graphic  portraiture, 
yet,  with  all  his  simplicity  and  plainness,  shews  frequently  great 
profoundness  of  conception.  Thus,  after  Xoia-6^}  Christ,  he  adds, 
by  way  of  explanation,  6  vlb$  rov  Qeov  rov  %&vrog,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  This  remark  is  most  important  in  tracing  the  meaning 
of  the  expression  the  Son  of  God.  For  obviously,  the  expression 
cannot  be  precisely  identical  with  Xpior6$,  since  in  that  case  there 
would  arise  a  tautology.  Its  aim  must  rather  be  to  determine  with 
more  exactness  the  import  of  Xpiorog.  The  natural  explanation, 
therefore,  is  this — at  first  the  disciples,  in  acknowledging  Christ 

VOL.  I.— 35 


546  MATTHEW  XVI.  15-17. 

as  the  Messiah,  had  merely,  according  to  their  Jewish  prepos- 
sessions, seen  in  him  a  distinguished  man  raised  up  and  endowed 
by  God  for  special  purposes.*  Their  closer  intercourse  with  the 
Saviour  opened  to  them,  through  the  working  of  the  Spirit,  a 
view  into  his  higher  nature  ;  they  recognised  in  him  a  revelation  of 
God,  and  without  thinking  of  any  theory  as  to  the  generation 
of  the  Son,  they  termed  this  revelation,  in  that  personal  manifes- 
tation in  which  it  stood  visibly  before  them,  the  Son  of  God. 
(Comp.  on  Luke  i.  35.)  The  article  points  to  the  definite,  Divine, 
central  manifestation  which  they  perceived  in  Jesus,  having  been 
by  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  instructed  as  to  its  real 
nature.  We  must  conceive  of  the  disciples  as  living  in  this,  and 
step  by  step  advancing  in  their  knowledge  of  it.  When  Matthew 
expressly  adds  "  Son  of  the  living  God,"  this  epithet  (?r\  tpnVs<) 
obviously  has  reference  not  to  idols,  there  being  no  reason  for  here 
contrasting  the  true  God  with  them,  but  to  the  reality  of  the  Divine 
manifestation  in  Christ.  The  image  of  Divinity,  as  reflected  in  him, 
was  so  strong  and  powerful,  that  through  it  the  Father,  as  his 
original,  was  for  the  first  time  properly  revealed  in  his  wondrous 
essence.  All  former  life-revelations  of  the  Living  one  were  dead, 
when  compared  with  the  living  fulness  which  flows  forth  in  all  the 
varied  exhibitions  of  the  Saviour.  (John  i.  4.) 

Ver.  17. — According  to  this  view,  the  import  of  the  blessing 
pronounced  by  the  Saviour  on  hearing  this  confession  becomes 
obvious.  For,  if  this  confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  is 
genuine,  it  necessarily  involves  a  revelation  of  Divinity  in  the  soul 
itself,  since  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  and  he  to 
whom  the  Father  reveals  him.  (Compare  on  Matth.  xi.  27  ;  1  Cor. 
xii.  3.)  But  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  within  the  soul  as  that 
which  gives  life  and  being  from  on  high,  of  itself  imparts  blessed 
ness.  (The  paKapios  el,  blessed  art  thou,  is  as  at  Matth.  v.  4,  not  a 
mere  expression  of  praise,  but  an  express  assurance  of  that  eternal 
and  blessed  existence  which  the  preceding  confession  implies.)  The 
confession  leads  our  Lord  to  infer  an  antecedent  revelation  (anwa- 
Avt/tff)  ;  for  the  Divine  glory  of  Christ  was  concealed  under  an  out- 
wardly mean  appearance,  and  could  therefore  become  known  only 
through  an  inward  manifestation.  This  revelation  he  expressly 

*  The  common  opinion  among  the  Jews  as  to  the  Messiah,  is  exhibited  by  Justin 
Martyr  (Dial.  c.  Tr.  J.  p.  266,  267),  when  he  lets  him  be  called  uvflpuxov  1%  urGpuiruv  and 
be  chosen  of  God  to  the  Messiahship  KOT'  t-nl.oy/jv,  because  of  his  virtues.  Probably  the 
disciples,  during  the  first  period  of  their  intercourse  with  the  Saviour,  saw  in  him  only 
the  son  of  Joseph,  until  it  gradually  became  clear  to  their  minds  that  the  Redeemer  of  the 
human  race  must  of  necessity  come  forth  in  a  strength  mightier  than  theirs  whom  he  was 
to  redeem,  and  the  direct  accounts  of  Mary,  who,  not  without  a  reason,  was  detained  till  all 
Christ's  work  was  finished  on  earth,  must  then  have  converted  their  presentiment  into  a 
certainty,  by  the  report  of  the  historical  events. 


MATTHEW  XVI.  17-19.  547 

denies  to  flesh  and  blood,  but  traces  to  the  Father.  (The  addition 
6  iv  rotf  ovpavolg  =  K-rrovpdviog ,  stands  in  contrast  to  the  emyeiog, 
which  is  implied  in  cap!-  Kal  afyta.)  This  formula  (flesh  and  blood) 
denotes  what  is  human  abstractly  considered,  which,  as  such,  is 
transitory  and  vain.  The  phrase  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  en1!  *"?? 
which  is  very  common  among  the  Rabbis  [comp.  Lightfoot  on  the 
passage],  and  had  previously  occurred  also  in  the  Apocrypha  [Sir. 
xiv.  18],  and  in  the  New  Testament,  Gal.  i.  16  ;  Heb.  ii.  14  ;  1  Cor. 
xv.  50  ;  Ephes.  vi.  12.)  The  reference  here  therefore  is  to  other 
men  as  well  as  to  the  natural  human  powers  of  Peter  himself,  so 
that  the  sense  here  is  "  nothing  human,  no  power  or  faculty  of  man, 
has  been  able  to  impart  to  you  this  knowledge,  only  the  Divine  can 
teach  us  to  know  the  Divine."  This  declaration  was  made  by  the 
Saviour  to  Peter,  along  with  the  address  Bap  'Iwva,  son  of  Jonah. 
It  is  exceedingly  probable  that  this  is  intended  to  form  a  contrast 
to  the  foregoing  'Irjaovs  vibe;  Qeov,  Jesus,  Son  of  God.  Simon  stands 
here  like  Jesus,  as  a  personal  designation ;  son  of  Jonas  is  probably 
used  here  in  a  figurative  sense.  Primarily  indeed  it  is  a  genealogical 
designation  (see  on  John  i.  43  ;  xxi.  16,  17),*  but  as  Hebrew  names 
generally  are  descriptive,  Christ  here  looks  to  the  import  of  the 
name.  Perhaps  he  referred  it  to  tisv^  a  dove,  and  in  that  case  this 
meaning  would  arise,  "  Thou  Simon  art  a  child  of  the  Spirit  (allud- 
ing to  the  Holy  Ghost  under  the  symbol  of  a  dove),  God  the  Father 
of  spirits,  Heb.  xii.  9,  hath  revealed  himself  to  thee."  Where  God 
reveals  himself  there  is  formed  a  spiritual  man. 

Ver.  18,  19. — Here  follows  a  new  installation  of  the  apostles. 
After  they  had  in  a  true  sense  acknowledged  Christ,  the  Lord  could 
disclose  to  them  also  the  real  import  of  their  own  office.  Let  us 
first  examine  the  meaning  of  the  words,  that  we  may  then  determine 
more  nearly  their  reference  to  Peter.  The  symbolic  name  which  the 
Saviour  gave  to  Peter  immediately  after  his  first  reception  as  his 
disciple  (comp.  on  John  i.  43),  he  here  renews  with  a  definite  expla- 
nation of  its  meaning.  Peter  is  to  be  the  rock  of  the  edifice  of  the 
church.  (The  church  is  represented  as  a  vaoq ,  temple,  a  common 
figure,  compare  1  Cor.  iii.  9  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16  ;  1  Peter  ii.  5.  The  Old 
Testament  temple  is  viewed  as  the  type  of  the  church,  as  OKTJVJJ, 
tabernacle,  is  regarded  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  chap,  viii.) 
The  church,  as  a  spiritual  structure,f  must  rest  naturally  on  a  spirit- 

*  Bap  Dan.  vi.  1,  vii.  13,  =  Heb.  ^a.  It  may  be  prevSumed  that  Jesus  in  this  conver- 
sation with  his  disciples  spoke  Aramaic,  'luvd,  contracted  from  'Iwawa  (comp.  John  i. 
43.)  =  •)5fi'-n  according  to  the  LXX.  at  1  Chron.  iii.  24,  'luavdv. 

f  In  the  gospels  this  is  the  only  passage  where  the  iKK^.rjaia  stands  as  =  /3a<r.  r.  9. 
In  another  sense  the  expression  occurs  at  Matth.  xviii.  17.  In  the  writings  of  Paul,  on 
the  other  hand,  iKKfa}(riaiB  the  usual  expression  for  the  visible  communion  of  Christians. 
Baa.  T.  0.  is  used  by  him  rather  for  the  ideal,  heavenly  fellowship.  In  the  Hebrew  «ng 
corresponds  to 


548  MATTHEW  XVI.  18,  19. 

ual  foundation  ;  Peter,  therefore,  in  his  new  spiritual  character, 
appears  as  the  supporter  of  Christ's  great  work  among  mankind, 
[and  this  evidently  as  destined,  Acts  ii.,  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
the  first  Christian  church],  Jesus  himself  is  the  creator  of  the 
whole  —  Peter,  the  first  stone  of  the  huilding.  (Compare  1  Pet.  ii. 
5.)  The  firmness  of  the  building  shews  itself  in  sustaining  the  onsets 
of  assailing  powers.  (Matth.  vii.  24,  seq.)  These  are  here  termed 
TTV/UW  adov,  gates  of  hell,  or  hades.*  Hades  (Vtew.)  the  abode  of 
dark  destructive  powers,  is  often  represented  as  a  palace,  strongly 
fastened,  thus  marking  its  security  and  its  formidable  power.  (Job 
xxxviii.  17  ;  Ps.  ix.  14  ;  Isaiah  xxxviii.  10.)  This  war-palace  stands 
opposed  to  the  holy  temple  of  God  (comp.  on  Luke  xi.  21,  22),  and 
appears  with  all  its  powers  as  assailing  it,  but  not  overcoming  it, 
for  against  $&??,  hades,  is  arrayed  ovpavog,  heaven,  in  the  fulness 
of  its  power.f  Still  retaining  the  same  figure,  then,  the  Lord 
of  this  temple  names  Peter  as  its  guardian  ;  he  receives  the  key  of 
it  with  full  authority  to  use  it,:}:  and  consequently  to  grant  admission 
or  to  shut  out.  (Isaiah  xxii.  22  ;  Kev.  iii.  7,  explain  this  symbolic 
expression.  —  That  the  same  Peter  is  first  termed  the  -nirpa,  rock, 
then  the  htj^o,  opener  [see  Isaiah  xxii.  22],  of  the  building  is  to  be 
explained  from  that  free  treatment  of  figurative  expression  which, 
with  all  their  accuracy,  prevails  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord.  The 
terms  deeiv  and  Meiv,  for  shutting  and  opening,  are  to  be  explained 
from  the  simple  custom  of  antiquity  of  fastening  doors  by  tying. 
John,  in  the  really  parallel  passage,  xx.  23,  resolves  the  figure  by 
the  terms  dfaevai,  remit,  and  Kparelv,  control,  retain.)  This  repre- 
sentation exhibits  an  earthly  and  heavenly  character  and  functions 
as  united  in  the  church.  Controlled  by  heavenly  powers,  the  acts  of 
its  earthly  agents  bear  not  merely  human  impress  and  authority,  but 
have  their  sanction  in  heaven.  Obviously  it  is  only  the  ideal  church 
which  is  here  spoken  of  with  its  ideal  representatives^  In  so  far  as 


*  Compare  Euripides  Hecuba  v.  1,  where  it  is  said  of  the  lower  world,  GKOTOV 
Iva  Aldrie  uKtarai. 

f  I  doubt  much  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation.  The  citations  prove  no  such 
woo-  castle.  I  regard  Hades  as  put  for  the  abode  of  death,  and  the  gates  (as  the  entrance), 
by  metonymy,  for  Hades  itself.  Thus  the  sense  is  :  "  Death  shall  not  prevail  against  it  : 
it  is  indestructible.  —  [K. 

$  Jeremiah  i.  10,  forms  a  striking  parallel  to  the  prerogative  of  forgiving  or  retaining  sins 
here  imparted  to  the  disciples.  For  the  Lord  there  says  to  the  prophet,  "  I  put  my  words 
in  thy  mouth,  see  I  set  thee  this  very  day  over  nations  and  kingdoms  that  thou  shouldest 
root  out,  break  in  pieces,  throw  down  and  destroy,  and  build  and  plant."  "What  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  given  in  an  outward,  is  in  the  New  Testament  given  in  an  inward 
form. 

§  To  the  apostles  was  granted  the  power,  absolute  and  unconditioned,  of  binding  and 
loosing  (so  that  he  who  was  shut  out  from  the  church  was  excluded  at  the  same  time 
from  heaven),  just  as  to  them  was  given  the  power  of  publishing  truth,  unmixed  with 
error.  For  both  they  possessed  miraculous  spiritual  endowments  (Gal.  i.  8,  9  ;  1  Cor.  v. 
1-5,  andxvL  22).  To  the  ordinary  ministers  of  the  church,  who  possess  not  this  extraor- 


MATTHEW  XVI.  18,  19.  549 

a  sinful  element  exists  in  the  external  church  (Matth.  xiii.  47),  the 
words  admit  of  no  application  to  it.  Of  the  real  everlasting  church, 
however,  they  are  forever  true.  Further,  the  power  which  here  is 
merely  promised,  is,  at  a  later  period  (John  xx.  23),  actually  imparted. 
It  remains  for  us  to  speak  of  Peter's  relation  to  the  other  disci- 
ples. That  which  at  ver.  19  is  spoken  to  Peter,  is  at  Matth.  xviii.  18, 
John  xx.  23,  addressed  to  all  the  apostles.  The  contents  of  ver.  18 
are  again  found  at  Eev.  xxi.  14,  and  Gal.  ii.  9,  applied  to  all  the 
apostles.  We  find  therefore  nothing  in  these  words  peculiar  to 
Peter  ;  he  merely  answers  as  the  organ  of  the  college  of  apostles, 
and  Christ  acknowledging  him  as  such,  replies  to  him  and  speaks 
through  him  to  them  all.  This,  however,  should  not  be  overlooked, 
that  Peter  is  and  was  intended  to  he  really  the  active  representative 
of  the  company  of  apostles  (as  John  may  be  termed  their  passive 
representative,  comp.  on  John  xxi.  21).  For  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive that  the  same  thing  which  the  Lord  here  addresses  to  Peter  could 
have  been  spoken  to  Bartholomew  or  Philip  ;  no  one  save  Peter 
could  have  been  called  the  representative  of  the  apostles.  The 
personal  difference  between  the  apostles  individually  and  the  pre- 
eminence of  Peter,  has  been  denied  merely  on  polemic  grounds  in 
opposition  to  the  Catholic  Church,  which  certainly  deduced  infer- 
ences from  it  for  which  there  was  not  in  Scripture  the  slightest 
ground  (comp.  on»Matth.  x.  2,  and  John  xxi.  15).  But  that  which 
is  through  Peter  bestowed  on  the  apostles,  was  again  through  the 
apostles  conferred  on  the  whole  church,  as  is  obvious  from  its  essential 
nature  in  accordance  with  which  the  existing  representatives  of  the 
church  (i.  e.,  the  really  regenerate),  exercise  the  spiritual  powers 
granted  to  it  by  the  Lord  ;  not,  however,  at  their  own  pleasure,  but 
according  to  the  intimations  of  that  Spirit  whom  to  know  and  to 
obey  is  implied  in  the  very  character  of  the  believer.  That  the 
apostles,  then,  and  their  genuine  spiritual  successors,  bore  the  word 
of  truth  in  one  direction  and  not  in  another,  that  they  followed  up 
their  labours  on  one  man  and  not  on  another,  in  this  consisted  the 
binding  and  the  loosing.  The  whole  new  spiritual  community 
which  the  Saviour  came  to  found  took  its  rise  from  the  apostles  and 
their  labours.  No  one  became  a  Christian  save  through  them,  and 
thus  the  church  through  all  time  is  built  up  in  living  union  with 
its  origin.  Christianity  is  no  bare  summary  of  truths  and  re- 
flections to  which  a  man  even  in  a  state  of  isolation  might  attain  ; 
it  is  a  life-stream  which  flows  through  humanity,  and  its  waves 
must  reach  ev&ry  separate  individual  who  is  to  be  drawn  within 
this  circle  of  life.  The  Gospel  is  identified  with,  and  grown  into 
union  with,  the  persons.  That  which  lies  enfolded  in  Christ  Jesus 
as  in  the  central  principle  of  the  new  life,  diffuses  itself  immedi- 
dinary  gift,  this  power  of  the  keys  (discipline),  as  well  as  the  gift  of  teaching,  has  passed 
over  in  but  a  limited  form. — [E.] 


550  MATTHEW  XVI.  19-21. 

ately  over  the  circle  of  the  twelve,  and  thence  over  those  wider 
circles  of  spiritual  life  which  were  gradually  formed  in  the  church. 
Already,  however,  have  we  referred  to  the  fact,  that  the  Lord's 
words  to  Peter  were  spoken  to  him  as  a  new  man,  and  are  true  only 
when  viewed  with  reference  to  this  new  nature.  That  the  old  man 
Peter  was  incapable  of  labouring  for  the  kingdom  God — to  say 
nothing  of  its  being  a  rock — is  shewn  by  the  following  context,  v. 
22,  seq.  The  usual  explanation,  therefore,  of  the  passage  which 
the  Protestant  Church*  is  wont  to  oppose  to  the  view  of  the  Cath- 
olics, according  to  which  the  faith  of  Peter  and  the  confession  of 
that  faith,  is  the  rock,  is  entirely  the  correct  one — only  the  faith 
itself  and  his  confession  of  it  must  not  be  regarded  as  apart  from 
Peter  himself  personally.  It  is  identified  with  him — not  with  the 
old  Simon  but  with  the  new  Peter.  (Peter,  as  the  new  name,  being 
understood  as  denoting  the  new  man.  Eev.  ii.  17.)  Hence  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  can  be  affirmed  only  of  the  Divine 
nature  in  Peter  (and  the  other  disciples),  for  God  alone  (in  so  far  as 
he  works  through  one  man  or  in  the  whole  church)  can  forgive  sin 
(see  on  Matth.  ix.  4,  5).  Although,  therefore,  the  forgiving  of  sins 
is  a  prerogative  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  yet  since  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  ceased  to  display  in  the  church  his  concentrated  and  miraculous 
agency  it  is  imparted  only  conditionally,  on  the  supposition,  namely, 
of  true  repentance  and  living  faith,  whose  existence  the  clergy  can- 
not discern,  since  the  gift  of  trying  the  spirits  has  ceased  (1  Cor. 
xii.  10),  but  the  Lord  alone. 

Ver.  20,  21. — On  this  advance  in  knowledge  the  Saviour  imme- 
diately founds  their  introduction  to  a  closer  acquaintance  with  his 
work  as  the  Redeemer ;  he  openly  declares  to  them  that  he,  the 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  must  suffer,  but  that  in  suffer- 
ing he  should  be  perfected.  He  wished  by  degrees  to  accustom 
them  to  bear  this  thought.  The  former  prohibition  to  speak  of  his 
dignity  (see  on  Matth.  viii.  4),  has  in  its  renewal  here,  reference  un- 
doubtedly to  the  people  who  were  accustomed  to  associate  with  the 
term  "  Messiah"  a  series  of  superficial  ideas  which  could  only  have 
been  obstructions  in  Christ's  way.  (For  further  details  as  to  dp^tepetf, 
ypa/Li/zareZf,  and  npsofivrepoi,  see  on  Matth.  xxvi.  57;  John  xviii.  12.) 
Respecting  the  prophecy  which  he  here  utters  in  regard  to  himself, 
we  remark,  that  to  understand  it  figuratively  in  the  sense,  "  I  shall 
be  apparently  overcome,  but  soon  and  gloriously  shall  my  cause 
assert  itself,"  is  too  shallow  to  claim  our  approval.  Christ  speaks 
too  often,  and  in  circumstances  the  most  varied,  of  his  death  and 
his  fate  generally  (see  on  John  ii.  19  ;  Matth.  xxvii.  63,  according 

*  This  explanation  some  of  the  fathers  of  the  church  had  already  given.  Gratz,  fol- 
lowing Du  Pin  (de  antiqua  ecclesiae  disciplina),  has  brought  together  the  passages  in  his 
work  on  Matth.,  part  ii.,  p.  110,  seq. 


MATTHEW  XVI.  20-23.  551 

to  which  last  passage,  the  Pharisees  place  a  watch  at  his  grave  for 
the  reason  that  he  had  spoken  of  his  resurrection),  to  permit  our 
referring  his  language  to  anything  but  literal  death.  In  the  del 
rraOelv,  must  suffer,  however,  his  death  is  viewed  as  a  necessary  one. 
At  the  parallel  passages,  Matth.  xx.  18;  Mark  x.  33,  there  stands 
the  simple  future  TrapadoO^ae-at  K.  r.  X.  What  this  del,  must,  was 
intended  to  mean  is  shewn  plainly  by  Luke  xviii.  31  (parallel  to  the 
last  quoted  passages),  where  it  is  said  reAeadrjaerai  -rravra  TO,  yeypa/z- 
(teva  did  r&v  7rpo07/rc5v  rw  vi&  rov  dv6purrov,  all  tilings  written  by  the 
prophets,  etc.  (Cornp.  Luke  xxiv.  26,  27,  44,  46.  In  the  last  pas- 
sage it  is  said,  ovra)  yeypanrai  Kal  ovr&g  edsi  Tradelv  rov  Xpiorov.}  The 
prediction  of  the  Messiah's  sufferings  in  the  prophets  was  not,  how- 
ever, arbitrary,  but  stood  in  necessary  connexion  with  the  Divine 
counsels.  Only  for  the  sake  of  the  disciples  does  the  Lord  go  back 
to  Scripture,  explaining  it  to  them  authoritatively,  and  comforting 
them  by  the  fact  that  even  the  Old  Testament  recognises  a  suffering 
Messiah.  It  might,  however,  be  conjectured  that  the  disciples  had 
after  the  event,  put  all  these  statements  in  more  specific  detail  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus,  for  example,  the  chronological  reference  in  the 
case  of  the  resurrection.  So  also  of  Matth.  xx.  18,  19,  and  the 
parallel  passages  in  Mark  and  Luke,  in  which  all  the  particulars  of 
Christ's  sufferings  are  fore-mentioned,  that  he  should  be  reviled, 
spit  upon,  scourged.  The  character  of  the  Gospel  history  would 
not  indeed  be  essentially  altered,  even  should  we  assume  that  the 
Evangelists  after  the  event  filled  up  with  more  minuteness  our 
Lord's  briefer  declaration.  But  bearing  in  mind  that  even  in  the 
Old  Testament,  especially  at  Ps.  xxii.  17,  19  ;  Is.  1.  6  ;  liii.  4,  seq., 
the  Messiah's  sufferings  had  been  stated  in  detail,  we  cannot  take 
offence  at  the  speciality  of  these  predictions.  But  to  raise  a  doubt 
of  the  Saviour's  general  foreknowledge  of  his  own  death,  is  absolutely 
inadmissible.  Nor  can  we  draw  from  the  deep  sadness  of  the  dis- 
ciples at  his  death,  any  inference  against  a  previous  mention  of 
the  resurrection,  for  the  reason  that  the  doctrine  of  a  suffering- 
Messiah  had  almost  wholly  ceased  to  be  recognised  among  the  Jews. 
(See  on  John  xii.  34.  Comp.  Hengstenberg's  Christology,  p.  252, 
seq.)  When  Christ  therefore  died,  the  disciples,  who  were  still 
influenced  by  popular  opinion,  thought  not  of  his  resurrection,  since 
they  were  staggered  in  regard  to  everything.  The  contrasts  which 
the  life  of  Christ  presented  before  their  eyes,  were  so  overwhelm- 
ingly great  that  they  were  stunned  and  confounded.  [Their  partial 
theoretical  belief  was  lost  in  the  awful  fact.] 

Ver.  22,  23. — But  if  we  find  in  the  disciples  an  incapacity  to 
penetrate  in  thought  the  mysterious  contrasts  presented  by  the  life 
of  Christ  even  at  his  crucifixion,  previous  to  which  they  had  expe- 
rienced so  much,  how  much  more  at  the  period  here  referred  to. 


552  MATTHEW  XVI.  22,  23. 

They  could  not  endure  that  the  Son  of  God  should  be  a  sufferer. 
The  manner  in  which  our  Lord,  however,  repels  the  words  of  Peter, 
who  again  speaks  as  the  representative  of  all  the  apostles,  points  to 
something  more  than  the  mere  failure  to  apprehend  a  difficult  idea. 
Peter  wholly  misunderstood  his  relation  to  the  Lord  ;  he  came  for- 
ward to  admonish  and  correct  him,  and  that  which  Christ  had  repre- 
sented as  necessary  (for  his  work)  he  seeks  to  put  far  from  him. 
(The  iAewf  ooi,  scil.  drj  Qeog  =  tjV  n^h  1  Chron.  xi.  19.)  But  even 
this  does  not  exhaust  his  meaning.  The  expression  anavdaXov  p,ov  eZ, 
thou  art  a  snare  to  me,  which  follows,  shews  that  Peter's  remark 
was  not  merely  a  sin  in  him,  but  a  temptation  to  the  Lord. 
Peter,  we  find  here,  perhaps  from  vanity  at  the  praise  just  uttered, 
sunk  back  to  the  level  of  the  natural  man — and  along  with  him  the 
other  disciples  whom  Jesus  here  rebukes  through  Peter,  just  as,  at 
ver.  18,  19,  he  had  conjoined  them  with  him  in  praise.  (Mark  viii. 
33,  indicates  this  by  his  expression  iduv  TOV$  padrjTag  av-ov.)  It  is 
the  part  of  the  natural  man,  however,  ra  T&V  dvOpunGw  faovetv,  to 
savor  the  things  of  men,  and  of  the  new  man  TO  rov  Qeov  Qpoveiv,  to 
savor  the  things  of  God.  It  is  not  the  wicked  man  (dvdpuTrog  novrj- 
p6f),  who  is  here  spoken  of,  but  only  the  natural  man  (-tpv^itcog,  1 
Cor.  ii.  14),  who,  incapable  of  rising  to  the  apprehension  of  the 
Divine,  draws  it  down  to  his  own  human  level.  Where  we  thus 
recognise  as  intelligible  the  co-existence  of  the  old  and  the  new  man 
(in  those  who  are  regenerate  but  not  yet  perfected),  and  the  alternate 
predominance  now  of  the  one  and  now  of  the  other,  we  also  under- 
stand how  Jesus  can  rebuke  that  same  Peter  whom  he  had  just  praised. 
This  diversity  of  language  is  dependent  on  the  varied  prevalence  of 
the  new  or  the  old  man  in  the  same  individual.  It  still  remains  for 
us  to  say  something  more  particularly  of  the  imaye  dmau  fiov,  oaravd, 
get  behind  me,  Satan.  These  words  are  to  be  explained  by  the 
following  anavdaXov  pov  d,  thou  art  a  snare  to  me,  by  the  addi- 
tion of  which,  Matthew  greatly  facilitates  our  understanding  the 
whole  of  this  remarkable  scene,  and  again  furnishes  proof  how  exact 
he  is  in  the  substance,  while  neglecting  the  outward  features  of  his 
narrative.  Unquestionably  the  Saviour  must  be  conceived  as  hav- 
ing maintained  one  continuous  conflict  with  temptation.  Its  great 
capital  periods,  at  the  commencement  and  close  of  his  ministry,  ex- 
hibit merely  in  a  concentrated  form,  what  ran  through  his  whole 
life.  Here,  then,  for  the  first  time,  it  assumes  the  form  of  suggest- 
ing the  possibility  of  escaping  suffering  and  death.  It  was  all  the 
more  concealed  and  dangerous  that  it  came  to  him  through  the 
lips  of  a  dear  disciple,  who  had  just  solemnly  acknowledged  his 
Divine  dignity.  What  we  remarked  in  the  case  of  the  history  of  the 
temptation  (see  on  Matth.  iv.  1,  seq.)  must  in  this  instance  also  be 
faithfully  kept  in  view.  From  the  clear  and  pure  fountain  of 


MATTHEW  XVI.  23-26.  553 

Christ's  life  no  unholy  thought  could  flow  ;  but  precisely  because 
he  was  to  be  a  conqueror  of  sin,  it  had  to  draw  near,  that  in  every 
form  he  might  overthrow  it  ;  and  in  his  human  nature,  which  only 
by  degrees  received  within  itself  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Divine  life, 
sin,  when  it  drew  near,  made  upon  him  an  impression.  Such  a 
sacred  moment  have  we  here.  With  the  glance  of  his  soul,  the 
Saviour  at  once  penetrated  the  source  whence  sprang  this  far  be  it 
from  thee,  and  killed^the  springing  evil  in  its  very  root.  This 
explains  at  once  the  import  of  the  oaravd,  which  was  addressed  to 
Peter  (arpafalc;  elrre  TW  n«rpo)).  The  opinion  that  Peter  is  here 
termed  a  wicked  counsellor,  or  even  an  adversary*  (from  its1?),  stands 
completely  self-refuted  ;  the  rock  of  the  church  cannot  possibly  be 
at  the  same  time  an  adversary,  and  assuredly  Peter  did  not,  by  hav- 
ing spoken  these  words,  cease  to  be  the  rock  of  the  church.  The 
aaravdg,  Satan,  is  none  other  than  the  agx^v  rov  KOO^OV  TOVTOV,  ruler 
of  this  world,  who  has  his  work  in  the  children  of  unbelief  (Ephes. 
ii.  2),  and  also  in  the  children  of  faith,  in  so  far  as  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  has  as  yet  not  sanctified  them,  i.  e.,  in  so  far  as  the  old  man, 
still  exposed  to  sinful  influences,  yet  lives  in  them.  This  influence 
had  Peter  (as  the  organ  of  the  others,  who  are  to  be  conceived  of 
as  under  the  same  guilt)  admitted  into  his  heart  without  knowing 
what  he  did.  Our  Lord,  however,  brings  him  to  the  consciousness 
of  what  he  was  doing,  by  naming  the  element  from  which  sprang 
the  thought  that  he  had  been  weak  enough  to  utter.  Thus,  as  in 
the  foregoing  confession  (ver.  16),  the  Divine  element  was  seen 
predominant  in  Peter,  so  evil  now  asserts  its  power  over  him  ;  and 
here,  therefore,  we  have  in  his  case  an  exhibition  of  that  ebbing 
and  flowing  of  spiritual  life,  which  every  one  experiences  who 
has  felt  in  his  heart  the  redeeming  power  of  Christ.  Where 
sin  is  powerful,  there  does  grace  excel  in  power  (Eom.  v.  20) ;  con- 
versely, however,  where  grace  is  mighty,  there  sin  also  puts  itself 
mightily  forth. 

Ver.  24-26. — Immediately  after  these  words,  Jesus,  transferring 
his  discourse  from  the  immediate  circle  of  his  disciples  to  a  more 
extensive  audience  (according  to  Mark  and  Luke),  subjoins  an 
admonition  upon  self-denial.  The  thoughts  themselves  we  have 
already  unfolded  at  Matth.  x.  37,  seq. ;  the  only  inquiry  here  is, 
what  association  of  ideas  connects  these  verses  with  the  foregoing. 
The  fact  that  Christ  must  die,  does  not  seem  to  imply  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence,  the  death  of  his  disciples,  for  indeed  Christ  died 
expressly  that  we  might  live.  Of  bodily  death  this  is  undoubtedly 
true,  but  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  is  a  pattern  for  his  church  (1 

*  As  regards  the  mere  usage  of  the  words,  this  explanation  may  be  justified  by  refer- 
ring to  such  passages  as  1  Kings  xi.  14  ;  2  Sam.  xix.  22.  In  the  New  Testament,  how- 
ever, ffaravdf  never  occurs  hi  the  sense  of  adversary. 


554  MATTHEW  XVI.  24-28. 

Peter  ii.  21).  What  the  Saviour  experienced,  all  his  redeemed 
ones  must  experience  spiritually ;  they  taste  the  power  of  his  resur- 
rection, but  previously  also  that  of  his  sufferings  (Phil.  iii.  10).  To 
be  made  alive  in  the  new  man  (in  the  i>v%y  -nvevfj-ariK^),  necessarily 
implies  the  dying  of  the  old.  (Compare  the  remarks  on  Matth.  x. 
37,  seq.)  The  expression  of  Peter  (ver.  22)  had  flowed  from  the 
natural  dread  of  conflict,  sufferings,  and  death,  and  hence  our  Lord 
exhorts  all  that  would  follow  him  to  undertake  these  willingly,  and 
for  the  sake  of  heavenly  things  to  sacrifice  all  the  earthly.  The 
gain  of  the  world  with  its  sensuous  enjoyments  (ver.  26)  could 
never  satisfy  man's  immortal  part.  Is  the  world  then,  the  object 
of  his  efforts  ?  He  loses,  in  that  case,  his  real  happiness.  The 
sacrifice  of  heavenly  treasure  alone  brings  real  pain,  that  of  our 
earthly,  pure  joy.  The  latter  may  be  compensated,  the  former 
never.*  In  the  words  ri  duoei.  dvOpv-xog  dvrd/l/lay/za,  what  will  a  man 
give,  etc.,  there  is  an  implied  declaration  that  only  G-od  could  find 
an  avrdXhayfta  for  the  souls  of  men.  (Comp.  on  Matth.  xx.  28.) 
'Avra/l/layitia,  exchange,  is  nearly  allied  to  Avrpov,  ransom,  although 
not  entirely  synonymous.  It  denotes  the  purchase-money,  the  object 
for  which  a  man  exchanges  any  thing,  as  Sir.  vi.  15,  faXov  morov  OVK 
EOTI  dvrdkkayna.  Thus,  while  the  avrak'kay\ia  proceeds  on  the  idea 
of  possession,  hvrpov  refers  to  a  state  of  slavery,  out  of  which  the 
Xvrpov  gives  deliverance.  In  this  respect,  the  expression  d7rd/l/lay//a, 
would  correspond  to  Xvrpov,  but  it  does  not  occur  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  verb  d-rrahkdooEiv,  however,  in  the  sense  of  to 
set  free,  occurs  at  Heb.  ii.  15.  To  this  admonition  to  self-denial 
Mark  and  Luke  subjoin  the  corresponding  threatening.  (As  to  the 
contents  of  the  verse,  compare  the  parallel  passage  Matth.  x.  32, 
33.)  The  shunning  to  enter  into  conflict  and  suffering,  is  in  fact 
to  be  ashamed  of  the  Lord,  and  to  sacrifice  the  eternal  to  the 
temporal.  And  this  will,  at  the  day  of  judgment,  display  its 
fatal  results.  (As  to  the  formula  epxeaOai  iv  d6%y  //era  r&v  dyytvtwv 
T&V  dytW,  see  on  Matth.  xxiv.) 

Ver.  27. — From  what  has  gone  before,  it  is  plain,  that  the 
formula  d-rroduoei  t'/caarw  /card  rrjv  Trpd&v  avrov,  he  will  render  to  each 
man  according  to  his  conduct,  must  be  understood  in  such  a  way, 
that  the  Trpdfa  denotes  not  individual  Kpya,  acts,  of  this  or  of  that 
kind,  but  the  whole  inward  course  of  life  (the  rbv  Koa^ov  or  ^vxrjv 
/cepdatVetv),  which  flows  from  faith  or  from  unbelief,  and  shews  itself 
in  the  fruits  of  the  one  or  of  the  other. 

Ver.  28 — To  render  his  mention  of  the  ?//zepa  Kpiae^,  day  of 
judgment,  more  impressive,  the  Saviour  sets  forth  its  threatening 
nearness.  As  at  Matth.  x.  23, 1  here  refer  once  more  to  the  leading 
passage  Matth.  xxiv.,  inasmuch  as  this  same  idea,  that  the  day  of 

*  The  same  thought  was  expressed  formerly  at  Ps.  xlix.  7-9. 


MATTHEW  XVI.  28;  XVII.  1. 

the  Lord's  second  coming  was  near,  must  be  understood  in  the  same 
way  throughout  the  New  Testament.  Here,  the  death  (ddvarov 
yevaaodai  =  n.ptt  &'•]»&),  of  some  who  were  present — as  the  longest 
livers,  is  assigned  as  the  period  of  the  Parousia.*  (The  words  wtfe 
^TWTef,  those  standing  here,  are  to  be  understood  of  the  whole  mul- 
titude who  surrounded  him,  the  apostles  as  well  as  the  others.)  One 
involuntarily  calls  to  mind  here  the  enigmatical  words  at  John  xxi, 
22,  on  which  compare  the  commentary.  The  parallel  passages  in 
Mark  and  Luke  refer  not  so  much  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  as  to 
the  coming  of  his  kindom  (Mark  adds  lv  6vvdpei),  and  these  expres- 
sions may  be  understood  as  describing  the  powerful  manifestations 
of  living  Christian  principle,  without  reference  to  the  personal  return 
of  Jesus.  But  the  immediate  connexion  of  these  words  with  the 
foregoing  context,  in  which  the  ep%£<70at  iv  ry  dogy,  coming  in  his 
glory,  refers  so  unmistakeably  to  the  Parousia,  does  not  admit  of 
this  explanation.  The  coming  of  the  kingdom  coincides  with  his 
coming  personally. 


§  32.  THE  TRANSFIGURATION  OP  JESUS. 

(Matth.  xvii.  1-13  ;  Mark  ix.  2-13  ;  Luke  ix.  28-36.) 

The  following  important  occurrence  demands  some  preliminary 
remarks,  that  we  may  contemplate  it  from  the  right  point  of  view, 
and  all  the  more  as  it  has  been  subject  to  the  utmost  diversity 
of  opinions.  At  the  outset,  we  summarily  reject  those  views  which 
reduce  the  fact  itself  to  a  dream  or  an  optical  delusion  ;  views  in 
which  thunder,  lightning,  and  passing  mists,  take  the  place  of  the 
voice  of  God,  and  the  cloud  of  light.  Other  explanations,  however, 
which  find  here  either  a  myth,  or  a  vision  without  any  outwardly 
visible  fact,  must  be  more  closely  examined.  Primarily,  then,  as  re- 
spects the  mythical  hypothesis,  it  has  historical  analogy  to  support 
it.  But  he  who  is  unable  to  place  the  Judaso-biblical  history  on  a 
level  with  the  course  of  historical  development  among  other  nations, 
must  be  precluded,  as  was  formerly  observed,  by  this  general  charac- 
ter of  the  Bible  narrative,  from  admitting  in  any  case  the  slightest 
mythic  element.  In  it,  we  have  a  history  of  God  amidst  the  human 
race,  in  which  everything  appears  actually  realized,  which  springing 
from  the  real  longings  of  the  soul,  human  fancy  has  invested,  in  the 

*  I  think  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  "  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  his  king- 
dom" refers  here  to  the  following  scene  of  the  transfiguration.  The  words,  "  shall  not  seo 
death  until  they  see  the  Son  of  Man,"  refers  not  to  length  of  life,  but  to  privilege:  some 
shall  have  the  privilege  of  beholding  him  in  his  glory  even  before  they  die.  So  some  an- 
cient commentators.  The  transfiguration  is  vhus  regarded  as  a  type  of  the  Saviour's 
future  glory  in  his  kingdom. — [K. 


556  MATTHEW  XVII.  1. 

histories  of  other  nations,  with  the  attractive  garb  of  fable.  Be- 
sides, in  this  narrative  of  the  transfiguration,  particulars  are  given 
which  directly  contradict  every  mythical  conception.  The  mythic 
style  of  narrative,  fe,  in  its  very  nature,  obscure  and  indefinite, 
but  here,  as  everywhere,  the  evangelists  maintain  their  historic 
sobriety.  Contrary  to  their  usual  practice,  they  relate  unanimously 
that  the  transfiguration  took  place  six  days  after  the  events  pre- 
viously recorded.  If  we  consider  that  they  wrote  thirty  years  at  least 
after  the  event,  it  is  obvious  how  deeply  the  solemn  occurrence  must 
have  imprinted  itself  on  their  memories,  from  their  retaining  the 
date  with  such  exactness.  According  to  Luke  ix.  37,  the  healing 
of  the  sick  boy,  which  all  the  evangelists  agree  in  placing  directly 
after  the  transfiguration,  took  place  on  the  following  day.*  A  thing 
of  this  kind  ill  agrees  with  the  mythical  forms  of  composition.  The 
history  obviously  reads  like  the  simplest  narrative  of  a  fact.  As  to 
the  view,  however,  that  we  have  here  the  record  of  a  vision,  the 
occurrence  is  certainly  styled  an  bpa^a,  thing  seen,  vision  (=Vth, 
PIN-*),  at  Matth.  xvii.  9 ;  this  term,  however,  is  by  no  means  re- 
stricted to  an  object  of  internal  contemplation ;  it  is  often  used  in 
cases  of  objects  outwardly  and  visibly  present.  It  merely  denotes, 
in  general,  objects  which  become  known  to  us  by  the  sense  of  sight,  hi 
contradistinction  to  those  made  known  to  us  verbally  (comp.  Acts 
xii.  9).  And  further,  the  explanation  of  the  occurrence  before  us 
as  a  vision  is  untenable,  from  the  fact  that  we  have  no  example 
of  a  mere  vision  occurring  at  once,  and  in  the  same  way  to  several 
persons,  and  these  so  widely  diverse  in  character  and  relation,  as 
were  Christ  and  the  three  disciples.  We  take  our  stand,  then,  on 
the  simple  literal  sense  of  the  narrative,  which  in  the  first  place 
is  assuredly  that  intended  by  the  narrators ;  and  in  the  next  place, 
vindicates  itself  perfectly  to  every  Christian  intelligence.  For  if  we 
assume  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  its  glorifica- 
tion, truths  which  assuredly  belong  to  the  system  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, the  whole  occurrence  presents  no  essential  difficulties.  The 
appearance  of  Moses  and  Elias,  which  is  usually  held  to  be  the  most 
unintelligible  point  in  it,  is  easily  conceived  of  as  possible,  if  we 
admit  their  bodily  glorification.  In  support  of  this  idea,  however, 
Scripture  itself  gives  sufficient  intimations  (Deut.  xxxiv.  6  com- 
pared with  Jude  9;  2  Kings  ii.  11,  compared  with  Sir.  xlviii.  9,  13), 
which  men  have  accustomed  themselves  to  set  down  as  belonging  to 
biblical  mythology — but  how  justly  is  another  question. 

Taken  then  as  literally  true,  the  incident  has  a  twofold  signifi- 
cance.    First,  it  is  a  kind  of  solemn  installation  of  Jesus  into  his 

*  Gratz  (Part  il,  p.  166)  appeals  also  to  2 Pet  i.  17.  As  however  the  genuineness  of 
the  epistle  cannot  be  certainly  established  we  must  not  bring  forward  this  interesting 
passage  in  the  character  of  a  proof.  Yet  ought  it  assuredly  to  be  read. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  1.  557 

holy  office  before  the  three  disciples,  chosen  to  be  present  at  it.  It 
was  intended  that  they  should  be  confirmed  in  the  truth  of  the 
foregoing  confession  (Matth.  xvi.  16),  and  more  fully  enlightened  as 
to  the  dignity  of  Jesus.  In  this  point  of  view,  the  Old  Testament 
furnishes,  in  the  history  of  Moses,  a  parallel  to  the  transfiguration. 
Along  with  Aaron,  Nadab,  and  Abihu,  he  ascended  Mount  'Sinai, 
received  there  the  law,  and  shone  to  such  a  degree  that  he  had  to 
cover  his  countenance.  (Compare  Exodus  xxiv.  with  xxxiv.  30,  seq.; 
2  Cor.  iii.  7,  seq.)  So  also  Christ  is  here  installed  as  the  spiritual 
lawgiver,  inasmuch  as  the  voice  said  avrov  d/covere,  hear  him, 
(Matth.  xvii.  5.)  His  word  is  law  to  his  people.  But  secondly,  the 
fact  has  reference  to  Jesus  himself.  For,  the  transfiguration  takes 
its  place  along  with  the  baptism,  the  temptation,  and  other  occur- 
rences in  which  Jesus  is  himself  the  object,  and  his  spiritual  life 
exhibited  in  its  course  of  development.  Throughout  his  earthly 
ministry  the  Saviour  appears  in  a  twofold  point  of  view ;  on  the 
one  hand  as  already  and  actively  redeeming  ;  on  the  other  as  in- 
herently advancing  his  own  perfection.  (Heb.  ii.  10,  enpe-rre  ro>  6eo> 
rbv  dpxrfybv  r^g  ouTTjpiag  did  -naQr^aruv  reteiuxjai,  it  became  God  to 
perfect,  etc.)  Only  by  degrees,  did  the  humanity  of  Jesus  receive 
into  itself  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead.  The  transfiguration  formed 
a  stage  in  this  process  of  development.  It  represented  in  figure  the 
kingdom  of  God  (in  that  the  risen  saints  shall  dwell  around  Jesus), 
and  the  heavenly  messengers  opened  to  him  more  fully  and  deeply 
the  counsel  of  God  in  the  work  of  redemption  (Luke  ix.  31).  If 
we  regard  the  glorification  of  the  body  as  not  effected  instantane- 
ously, but  as  gradually  prepared  for,  the  transfiguration  will  in 
this  respect  also  have  had  an  important  significancy.  (Compare 
the  Commentary,  Part  II.)  [Luke  ix.  31,  is  of  importance  for  the 
understanding  of  this  event.  Jesus  had  a  few  days  before  announced 
his  death,  and  vanquished  the  temptation  to  escape  from  it  suggested 
by  the  language  of  Peter.  Now  also  Moses  and  Elias  speak  of  his 
coming  decease  at  Jerusalem.  Law  and  promise  demanded  his 
death,  and  the  Saviour  is  ready.  Upon  this  the  voice  of  the  Father 
is  again  heard  pronouncing  him  the  genuine  Saviour,  the  obedient 
Son,  and  expressing  God's  approval  of  his  acts,  and  this  alike  before 
the  lawgiver  and  the  chief  of  the  prophets,  as  before  "  the  two  wit- 
nesses of  Christ,"  as  they  are  called,  Rev.  xi.  3.] 

Ver.  1. — With  perfect  unanimity,  which  runs  with  trifling  ex- 
ceptions through  the  whole  narrative,  the  evangelists  relate  that  the 
transfiguration  took  place  after  six  days,  reckoning  from  the 
occurrence  which  precedes  it.  (The  eight  days  in  Luke  indi- 
cate merely  another  way  of  enumerating  the  days.)  The  moun- 
tain they  describe  in  the  most  general  terms  (opo^  vt/^Aov),  and 
we  are  left  to  conjecture  in  determming  where  the  event  oc- 


558  MATTHEW  XVII.  1-3. 

curred.*  The  preceding  incident  took  place  at  Ceesarea  Philippi 
(Mark  viii.  27),  and  there  has  therefore  been  a  disposition  to  seek 
the  mountain  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  sea  of  Gennesareth.  But  it 
is  impossible  to  shew  that,  during  the  six  intervening  days,  Christ  had 
not  changed  his  locality.  The  early  fathers  of  the  church  conceived 
it  to  have  been  Mount  Tabor  (Hos.  v.  1,  in  the  LXX.  'I~a/&ptov), 
doubtless  only  because  it  is  the  highest  mountain  in  Galilee.  It 
seems  strange,  that  in  this  case  Jesus  takes  only  three  disciples 
with  him,  for  it  would  appear  that  the  same  confirmation  of  their 
faith  was  equally  necessary  for  the  others.  We  have  already  remarked, 
however,  at  Matth.  x.  1,  that  the  disciples  stood  in  various  relations  to 
the  Saviour.  The  three  here  named  appear  in  the  Gospel  narrative  as 
his  most  immediate  and  confidential  companions.  As  they  here  beheld 
him  glorified,  so  at  a  later  period  (Matth.  xxvi.  27),  they  witnessed 
his  deepest  sufferings.  The  ground  of  this  distinction  which  the 
Saviour  made  among  the  twelve,  was  obviously  not  caprice,  but  a 
difference  in  their  dispositions  and  vocations.  This  made  necessary 
a  different  training.  An  esoteric,  secret  course  of  instruction  com- 
municated by  the  Lord  to  these  three  is  not  to  be  thought  of. 
Everywhere,  stress  is  laid  by  Christ,  not  on  the  imparting  of  a 
doctrinal  system,  but  on  the  renewal  of  the  whole  man. 

Ver.  2,  3. — While  Jesus  then,  was  engaged  in  prayer  (Luke  ix. 
29),  there  took  place  a  change  in  his  person — his  face  and  his  dress 
shone  brightly.  It  is  not  said  by  the  narrators,  whether  this  glory 
was  internal  or  came  from  without.  But  as  Moses  and  Elias  are 
mentioned  in  immediate  connexion  with  it,  and  as  they  also  shone 
(according  to  Luke  ix.  31),  it  is  probably  the  design  of  the  narrators 
to  represent  the  whole  scene  as  illumined  by  a  bright  light  (do£a, 
•t^s),  for  it  is  ever  in  this- form  that  the  supernatural  presents  itself 
to  men.  We  may  therefore  conceive  of  the  two  things  as  united  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  ;  he  was  irradiated  by  light  shed  on  him  from 
without,  and  he  himself  shone  from  within.  Mark  paints,  after  his 
manner,  the  outward  brightness  of  the  clothing  (ix  3);  the  indefinite 
term,  however,  i.ieTap.op<f)ovadai)  transfigured,  employed  by  Matthew, 
is  paraphrased  by  Luke  with  the  words  ~b  ddog  rov  —poouTrov  avrov 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  the  most  important  incidents  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  (the 
transfiguration,  sufferings,  death,  ascension),  took  place  on  mountains,  as  also  that  it  was 
his  custom  to  ascend  mountains  for  prayer.  In  the  same  way,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
sacrifices  were  offered  on  mountains,  and  the  temple  also  was  built  on  a  mountain.  This 
is  connected  with  the  Scriptural  system  of  symbols,  according  to  which  mountains  were 
compared  to  the  vault  of  heaven.  Hence  so  often  in  the  Old  Testament  docs  the  expres- 
sion occur  ''mountains  of  ascent,  everlasting  hills"  (Gen.  xlix.  26  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  15  ;  Ps. 
xi.  1 ;  Ixxii.  3 ;  cxxi.  1 ;  Hab.  iii.  20 ;  Rev.  xiv.  1).  It  is  interesting  to  observe  the 
parallelism  of  this  with  the  idol-mountains  of  the  ancient  natural  religions  (compare 
Baur's  Theology,  Part  I.,  p.  169).  The  learned  man  we  have  named  compares  even  the 
German  name  Himmel  (heaven),  with  the  Indian  Himalayas,  the  primeval  idol  mountains 
of  the  Hindoos. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  2,  3.  559 

grepov  ejEvsro.  The  narrator  may  by  these  words  merely  mean  to 
say  that  his  countenance  wore  an  unwonted,  an  elevated  expression. 
The  characteristic  shining  or  radiance  Matthew  brings  forward  with 
special  prominence  (comp.  Dan.  xii.  3  ;  Rev.  x.  1).  It  is  a  natural 
symbol,  to  conceive  of  Divine  and  heavenly  objects  as  luminous ; 
in  no  nation  or  individual  are  they  presented  under  the  emblem  of 
darkness.  The  fulness  of  the  radiance  betokens  very  naturally  the 
degree  of  purity  in  the  revelation  from  on  high.  In  these  figurative 
forms  of  speech  does,  universal  humanity  express  itself ;  for  they 
correspond  to  those  essential  traits  which  reveal  themselves  to  every 
mind.  (Paul  uses  the  word  perapop^ovadat  in  describing  the  internal 
processes  of  regeneration,  Roin.  xii.  2;  2  Cor.  iii.  18.)  It  is  strange 
that  any  question  should  be  raised  as  to  how  the  disciples  could 
have  known  Moses  and  Elias,  partly  because  of  the  obvious  answer, 
that  in  the  conversations  as  to  the  occurrence,  which  immediately 
follow,  Jesus  may  have  informed  them,  and  partly  because  to  any 
one  imbued  with  the  Spirit  of  Scripture,  such  characters  as  Moses 
and  Elias  must  be  conceived  as  bearing  an  impress  that  could  not 
be  mistaken. 

Luke  ix.  31,  32,  gives  some  additional  particulars,  which  are  of 
the  highest  importance  for  our  understanding  the  whole  occurrence. 
He  remarks,  first,  that  Moses  and  Elias  had  spoken  of  the  decease 
of  Jesus  (t^odog  in  the  sense  of  the  end  of  life,  death,  as  at  Wisdom 
vii.  6  ;  2  Peter  i.  15),  which  awaited  him  in  Jerusalem.  We  have 
here  a  peculiar  feature,  beyond  the  conception  of  a  myth,  set- 
ting in  immediate  contrast  with  this  state  of  glorification,  the 
deepest  humiliation.  It  would  seem,  however,  as  if  the  Saviour's 
glory  was  exhibited  to  him  in  its  reality,  in  order  to  strengthen  him 
for  victory.  Yet  even  after  this,  his  soul  faltered,  although  he  here 
tasted  the  glory !  (The  expression  tvleyov  sgodov,  spake  of  his  decease, 
it  may  be  added,  is  unquestionably  to  be  understood  as  referring  not 
so  much  to  the  fact  of  the  death  itself,  as  to  its  more  immediate 
circumstances  and  relations.  Moses  and  Elias  appear  merely  as 
ayyeAot,  as  messengers  from  the  higher  world.)  Luke  however 
relates  further,  that  Peter  and  his  two  companions  were  heavy  with 
sleep,  and,  upon  rousing  themselves  (dia^rj^oprjaavreg),  beheld  the 
glory  of  Jesus  and  of  the  two  men.  Even  in  the  same  way  did 
sleep  overcome  these  three  disciples  amidst  the  sufferings  of  Jesus 
at  Gethsemane  (Matth.  xxvi.  40),  where  Luke  relates  (xxii.  45),  that 
they  slept  from  grief  (d-rrb  1%  Avm/f).  Great  mental  agitations, 
whether  of  joy  or  sorrow,  are  fatiguing.  Their  solemn  situation 
amidst  the  loneliness  of  night  upon  a  mountain — with  the  Saviour 
apart — all  this  must  have  taken  hold  of  their  souls,  and  produced 
physical  exhaustion.  Nothing  however  can  be  more  incorrect,  con- 
tradicting both  history  and  Scripture,  than  to  conclude  that  owing 


560  MATTHEW  XVII.  2-5. 

to  this  drowsiness  they  were  unable  correctly  to  observe  what  passed. 
The  accuracy  of  their  narrative  rests  obviously  not  so  much  on  their 
own  observations  as  on  their  subsequent  conversation  with  Jesus. 
Had  the  disciples  fallen  into  any  mistake,  the  truthfulness  of  Jesus 
would  at  once  have  undeceived  them.  Far  rather  does  the  simple 
narrative  of  the  circumstances  as  they  happened,  even  of  such  as 
seemed  unfavourable  to  themselves,  vouch  for  their  honesty  and 
straight-forwardness. 

Ver.  4. — Peter,  the  speaker,  breaks  silence  (dTroKpiveoOai  —  njy, 
see  on  Luke  i.  60),  and  expresses  his  astonishment  at  this  spectacle. 
Elsewhere,  fear  is  the  feeling  awakened  by  the  phenomena  of  the 
spiritual  world  (see  on  Luke  i.  12,  as  also  at  ver.  6),  as  is  immediately 
shewn  in  the  disciples,  when  they  heard  the  voice.  To  account  then 
for  so  remarkable  a  declaration  of  Peter,  Mark  and  Luke  immediately 
subjoin  the  words  p?  el6u$  8  Aey«,  not  knowing  what  he  saith.  These 
words  refer  not  by  any  means  to  the  drowsiness  of  the  disciples,  but 
to  their  state  of  ecstasy.  The  elevation  of  the  scene  hurried  them 
away  ;  they  were  lifted,  as  it  were,  above  themselves.  (The  expres- 
sion Kvpte  in  the  address  is  explained  more  clearly  by  the  parallel 
terms  paftfti*  and  emffrdra  in  Mark  and  Luke.  It  has  not  here  as 
yet  the  pregnant  meaning  which  it  has  acquired  in  the  writings  of 
Paul,  who  uses  nvpiog}  Lord,  =  n}sr?,  Jehovah.)  Among  the  Evan- 
gelists, Luke  already  here  and  there  (xi.  39  ;  xii.  42  ;  xiii.  15), 
makes  this  use  of  6  Kvptog  in  contradistinction  to  nvpiog.  (Compare 
however  on  Matth.  xxi.  3.)  The  meaning  of  the  expression  GKrjvdg 
TToiijoupEv,  let  us  make  tabernacles,  obviously  is  merely  this — would 
that  for  a  lengthened  period  we  might  remain  in  this  place  and  in 
this  company  !  (Compare  the  remarks  on  ver.  10.)  The  words 
express  the  longing  of  his  soul  after  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  which 
the  saints  and  those  who  are  raised  from  the  dead  shall  be  for  ever 
around  the  Lord.  Inasmuch  as  Peter  speaks  of  three  tents,  he 
places  himself  and  his  two  companions  humbly  in  the  background 
as  the  servants  of  the  three.  The  whole  form  of  the  address  how- 
ever shews  that  Peter  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  primary  figure  in 
the  picture  ;  the  representatives  of  the  old  covenant  appear  to  him 
as  merely  subordinate,  as  messengers  from  the  heavenly  Father  to 
the  Son. 

Ver.  5. — Suddenly  however  the  scene  changes ;  even  the  three 
disciples  who  were  admitted  to  see  Jesus  in  his  glory,  were  shut  out 
by  a  bright  cloud  from  the  company  of  the  other  three.  Most  gra- 
phically is  the  scene  presented  to  us  by  Luke.  The  two  messengers, 
Moses  and  Elias,  made  a  movement  to  one  side,  went  apart  (Luke 
ix.  33,  iv  TO)  6ia^d)pi^eodai  avrovg  atr'  avrov)  :  while  Peter  was  yet 
speaking  the  bright  cloud  came,  and  Jesus  with  the  two  entered 
*  As  to  the  name  />a/3/3t  compare  on  Matth.  yyiii.  7. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  5.  561 

into  it.  All  the  three  were  thus  enclosed  as  in  a  sanctuary  ;  the 
disciples  stood  without.  On  this,  they  became  greatly  afraid,  partly 
because  they  felt  themselves  alone,  dissevered  from  their  Lord,  and 
partly  because  the  new  phenomenon  of  the  luminous  cloud  over- 
whelmed them  with  terror.  (I  prefer  with  Griesbach  the  read- 
ing veQekr]  (f)ur6g,  although  the  most  numerous  and  best  MSS. 
have  0<oT«v?7.  For,  (purog  was  probably  changed  into  ^yrt,ivr\  be- 
cause of  the  apparent  contradiction  with  faec/daffey.  It  seemed 
impossible  that  a  cloud  of  light  could  darken  or  overshadow,  while 
it  was  easy  to  conceive  of  a  bright  cloud  casting  a  shadow.  The 
reading  ^retvij  consequently  better  admits  of  the  usual  sense  of 
v£0eA?7  being  retained.  According  to  the  view  of  the  author,  how- 
ever, the  words  i-nEOKiaaev  avrovg,  overshadowed  them,  are  used  in 
regard  to  the  light-cloud,  only  in  so  far  as  it  prevented  the  disciples 
from  seeing.  The  most  intense  light  is  =  OKOTO^ ,  darkness.  Hence, 
in  the  language  of  Scripture  the  expressions  are  used  synonymously, 
God  dwelleth  in  (j^g  d-rrpooiTov,  light  unapproachable,  and  in  dark- 
ness, 1  Tim.  vi.  16  ;  Exod.  xx.  21.  The  voice  then,  which  spake 
from  the  midst  of  the  cloud,  leaves  us  in  no  doubt  what  we  are  to 
think  of  it.  It  is  the  voice  of  the  Father  who  instals  the  Son  (Ps. 
ii.  7,  npN  is  a)  as  the  governor  of  his  kingdom,  and  commands  that 
he  be  obeyed.  (Compare  as  to  ahov  dtcovere,  the  passage  Deut.  xviii. 
18,  in  which  the  first  Lawgiver  promises  a  second  and  more  exalted). 
The  cloud  was  the  Schechinah  (compare  Buxt.  Lex.  Talm.  s.  h.  v. 
Bertholt.  Christ,  jud.,  p.  Ill),  the  symbol  of  the  Divine  presence, 
into  which  Moses  entered  on  Mount  Sinai  (Exod.  xx.  21),  and  which 
descended  upon  the  Tabernacle  and  in  the  Temple  (Exod.  xi.  84  ; 
1  Kings  viii.  10).  As  regards  the  voice  and  the  words  uttered,  all 
that  is  necessary  will  be  found  in  our  remarks  on  Matth.  iii.  17. 
We  must  not  however  overlook  here  the  additional  clause  avrov 
dicovere,  hear  him,  which  is  wanting  on  the  occasion  of  the  baptism. 
(It  is  taken  from  Deut.  xviii.  15,  v^ictuin  I^N.)  These  words  deter- 
mine the  peculiar  character  of  the  scene.  The  Messianic  Son  of 
God,  who  has  already  laboured  and  taught  under  the  Divine  com- 
mission, is  now  formally  appointed  the  Lord  and  Ruler  of  the  earth, 
in  presence  of  the  representatives  of  the  heavenly  and  earthly  world. 
What  the  tempter  had  set  before  the  Lord  (Matth.  iv.  8,  Trdaag  rag 
paoiXeiag  rov  Koopov,  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world),  is  here  conferred 
on  him  by  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  indeed  not  merely  the 
dominion  of  earth  but  also  that  of  heaven.  To  this  solemn  trans- 
action does  the  Saviour  look  back,  when  he  saye  t668r]  pot  Trdoa 
&;ovaca  KV  ovpav&  KOI  em  yijs,  all  power  was  given*  to  me  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  (Matth.  xxviii.  18).  The  gospel  history  thus  enables 

*  The  Aor.  iA66ij,  was  given,  seems  to  point  to  a  special  occasion  of  the  bestowment 
of  the  power,  and  may  confirm  the  author's  view. — [K. 
VOL.  I.— 36 


562  MATTHEW  XVII.  5-9. 

us  to  follow  plainly  the  separate  periods  in  the  perfecting  (refoiaaig) 
of  the  Son  of  God.  Here,  at  his  appointment  to  his  everlasting 
kingdom,  it  is  at  the  same  time  shewn  to  him  'how  he  must  by  his 
own  blood  purchase  his  church. 

Ver.  6-8. — Now  the  disciples  lost  all  consciousness,  they  sank 
on  their  faces,  and  saw  Jesus  alone.  (Compare  as  to  the  sinking 
down  of  the  disciples,  Dan.  x.  8,  9  ;  Eev.  i.  17.  In  both  cases  the 
touch  of  the  hand  acts  restoratively,  it  infuses  power  into  men  dis- 
abled by  the  sight  of  the  Divine  Majesty.) 

Ver.  9. — In  a  historical  point  of  view  this  verse  is  specially  re- 
markable, from  the  fact  that  it  forms  the  immediate  basis  on  which 
rests  the  credibility  of  the  occurrence  which  precedes  it.  The  conver- 
sation respecting  it  with  the  Saviour  precludes  the  suspicion  of  any 
misunderstanding  which  he  deemed  it  necessary  to  remove.*  Fur- 
ther, the  prohibition  to  mention  the  event  indicates  that  Jesus  did 
not  impart  the  same  information  equally  to  all  the  disciples,  but 
that  he  had  even  in  the  circle  of  his  disciples,  a  still  more  select  and 
favoured  company.  It  would  certainly  be  a  mistake,  to  infer  from 
such  an  indication  that  there  was  any  system  of  doctrines  which 
Jesus  communicated  to  some  and  withheld  from  others.  This  is  the 
error  of  the  Alexandrine  fathers  and  Gnostics.  But  not  less  were  it 
an  error,  to  deny  any  distinction  in  the  communications  made  by 
Jesus  to  his  different  disciples.  It  is  difficult  however  to  assign  here 
the  ground  of  the  prohibition  (compare  on  Matth.  viii.  4).  Any 
abuse  or  misunderstanding  of  such  a  fact,  of  which  there  was  obvi- 
ously a  risk  only  in  the  case  of  the  general  multitude,  might,  so  far 
as  the  disciples  were  concerned,  have  easily  been  guarded  against, 
by  correct  information.  To  me  it  seems  probable  that  this  prohibi- 
tion rested  on  no  other  ground  than  the  exclusion  of  the  other  dis- 
ciples from  being  present  at  the  occurrence — they  could  not  as  yet 
bear  everything.  (At  John  xvi.  12,  the  same  thing  is,  in  regard  to 
other  events,  applied  to  all  the  apostles.)  According  to  Luke  ix. 
36,  the  disciples  obeyed.  Matthew  himself  therefore  received  his 
information  of  the  event  only  after  the  resurrection.  We  must 
obviously  conceive  of  the  disciples  as  engaged  at  that  time  in  the 
liveliest  interchange  of  all  their  experiences.  Mark  remarks  (ix.  10), 
that  this  word  sank  deeply  into  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  (uparelv 
=  p!0,  to  seize  on,  to  hold  fast,  as  something  important.  Compare 
at  Luke  ii.  51,  the  verb  dtar^ptiv),  and  occasioned  also  separate  con- 
versations among  them.  It  was  the  dvdoraoig,  resurrection,  at  which 
they  stumbled.  The  idea  they  were  accustomed  to  form  of  it  they 
could  not  reconcile  with  the  character  of  the  Messiah  whom  they 
had  just  seen  in  heavenly  glory,  for  it  presupposed  his  death. 

*  The  idea,  that  the  prohibition  was  given  merely  to  prevent  these  disseminating 
their  misapprehension,  stands  self-refuted. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  9-13.  563 

This  little  trait  singularly  confirms  the  truthfulness  of  the  nar- 
rative. 

Ver.  10-13. — Luke  here  closes  the  narrative,  but  Matthew  and 
Mark  give  a  selection  from  a  most  important  conversation  which 
arose  in  consequence  of  the  occurrence  just  recorded.  It  referred  to 
Elias,  whom  the  learned  among  the  Jews  usually  associated  with 
the  appearance  of  the  Messiah.  There  is  an  obscurity  however  in 
the  introduction  to  the  discourse,  which  commenced,  according  to 
Matthew,  with  the  question  of  the  disciples,  ri  ovv  ol  ypa^ard^  K. 
r.  A. ;  why  then  say  the  scribes  ?  etc.  The  ovv,  then,  points  back  to 
something  that  had  gone  before,  and  the  whole  inquiry  leaves  the 
impression  that  the  disciples  believed  the  opinion  of  the  learned 
Jews  to  have  been  incorrect,  for  which  reason  Christ  confirms  it  as 
right.  It  is  most  natural  certainly  to  view  the  reference  as  pointing 
back  to  ver.  4,  where  Peter  hoped  that  Elias  would  now  remain  with 
them,  and  enter  on  his  labours.  Instead  of  that,  he  at  once  disap- 
peared, and  for  this  reason  he  asks  what  they  were  to  make  of  the 
above  opinion.*  Jesus  declares  it,  according  to  Mai.  iv.  5,  to  be 
wholly  correct,  and  defines  the  kind  of  labours  in  which  he  was  to 
engage  by  the  words  d-rroKaTaoTrjoei  Trdvra,  he  shall  restore  all  things 
(=  aiajn,  in  the  passage  referred  to).  For  as  the  Tishbite  once 
laboured  of  old  as  an  emendator  sacrorum,  so  shall  he  also  come 
forth  at  his  second  appearance.  He  is  no  creator  of  a  new  order  of 
things  in  the  spiritual  life,  but  (by  legal  strictness  and  severity)  he 
stems  the  course  of  sinful  confusion,  and  re-introduces  a  state  of 
order.  Into  this  scene  the  Messiah  steps  forth  as  a  Creator.  Christ 
however  irftimates  that  one  had  already  exercised  for  'him  this  office, 
but  the  scribes  had  put  him  to  death.  The  disciples  (according 
to  earlier  intimations,  see  on  Matth.  xi.  14)  understood  him  to  mean 
the  Baptist.  "What' is  expressed  however  so  decidedly  here,  that 
Elias  is  already  come,  must  be  modified  according  to  the  statement 
of  Matth.  xi.  14.  (Compare  the  remarks  on  the  passage  referred 
to.)  For,  the  appearance  of  Elias  at  the  transfiguration  as  little 
exhausted  the  prediction  of  the  prophet  (Mai.  iv.  5),  as  did  the 
sending  forth  of  the  Baptist.  [?]  Each  was  merely  a  prefiguration, 
adapted  to  Christ's  first  appearance  in  his  humiliation  (which  the 
Old  Testament  never  clearly  distinguishes  from  his  second  coming  in 
glory),  but  the  prophecy  itself  remains  awaiting  its  fulfilment  at 
Christ's  future  appearance  (compare  on  Rev.  xi.  3,  seq.)f  While 

*  Peter  appears  merely  to  wish  to  know  this,  whether  this  appearance  of  Elias  is  the 
one  referred  to  in  prophecy.  Jesus  corrects  him.  "  Elias  certainly  cometh  (=  it  is  pre- 
dicted that  he  shall  come),  but  I  tell  you  that  he  is  come  already  (the  prophecy  is  already 
fulfilled  in  Johu  the  Baptist"),  comp.  Luke  i.  17. — That  the  real  Elias  is  to  appear  before 
Christ's  second  coming,  is  not  intimated  in  the  passage. — [E. 

f  As  to  the  history  of  the  interpretations  which  have  been  given  of  the  passage  in 
Malachi,  compare  Hengstenberg's  Christology,  voL  iii.,  p.  444,  seq. 


564  MATTHEW  XVII.  13-15. 

Jesus,  at  Matth.  xvii.  12,  draws  a  parallel  between  the  fortunes  of 
John  and  his  own  coming  fate,  Mark  reads  the  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  predicting  the  sufferings  of  John.  Kadug  yfypa-n- 
rat,  In'  avrov,  as  it  is  ivritten  of  him,  he  writes  at  ix.  13.  Now  no- 
thing of  the  kind  is  expressly  predicted  of  John,  nor  does  the  history 
of  Elias  admit  of  being  typically  referred  to  him,  for  Elias  did  not 
die  in  the  persecution.*  It  is  probable  therefore  that  the  evangelist 
brings  together  here  (as  at  Matth.  ii.  23),  in  one  collective  quotation, 
all  the  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  persecution  of  prophets 
and  pious  men  is  spoken  of.  Besides,  the  answer  of  Christ  in 
Mark,  acquires,  through  the  peculiar  collocation  of  the  thoughts,  a 
character  quite  different  from  that  which  it  bears  in  Matthew.  It 
has  been  conjectured  that  the  text  is  corrupt,  but  without  any 
ground.  Obviously,  according  to  Mark,  the  Saviour  sets  over  against 
the  inquiry  of  the  disciples  another  question,  in  order  to  rouse  them 
to  reflection.  The  sense  is  then  as  follows,  "  The  Scribes  say  Elias 
must  first  come ;"  Jesus  replied,  "  Elias  certainly  cometh  first 
(•rrp&Tog  =  Trporepof),  and  setteth  all  in  order  ;  but  how  in  that  case 
can  it  stand  recorded  of  the  Son  of  man  that  he  must  suffer  much 
and  be  rejected  ?"  By  the  question  thus  retorted,  Jesus  wishes  to 
rouse  his  disciples  to  the  conviction,  that  the  prediction  respecting 
the  preparatory  ministry  of  Elias  is  not  to  be  understood  absolutely. 
He  certainly  setteth  all  in  order,  but  the  sins  of  men  prevent  his 
efforts  taking  effect.  And  in  conclusion,  the  assurance  is  subjoined, 
that  Elias  is  already  come  in  the  Baptist  (i.  e.,  in  John  working 
in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias.  See  on  Luke  i.  17.) 


§  33.  HEALING  OF  THE  LUNATIC. 

(Matlh.  xviL  14-23 ;  Mark  ix.  14-32 ;  Luke  ix.  37-45.) 

The  three  evangelists  are  still  parallel  in  this  narrative,  and  the 
indication  of  the  time  given  by  Luke,  iv  rq  igrjg  ^epa,  again  con- 
joins the  narrative  so  introduced  in  the  closest  way  with  what  had 
gone  before.  Mark  exhibits  himself  once  more  in  this  history  in 
his  well-known  character.  The  epileptic  boy  he  paints  with  a 
master-hand,  and  the  whole  scene  amidst  which  the  cure  was 
wrought.  We  see  the  ever  swelling  current  of  people  as  they 
pressed  to  the  spot,  and  the  paroxysms  amidst  which  the  beneficent 
power  of  Jesus  overmasters  the  destructive  power  which  controlled 

°  Hengstenberg  (Christol.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  478)  is  of  opinion,  indeed,  that  Jezebel  had  in- 
tended to  kill  Elias,  and  that  although  her  purpose  did  not,  like  that  of  Herodias,  take 
effect,  yet  no  weight  is  to  be  laid  on  this  difference.  But  in  this  opinion  I  cannot  share. 
A  type  demands  in  every  case  facts,  not  mere  intentions. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  13-17;  MARK  IX.  20^27.  565 

the  child.  The  narrative  of  this  cure  demands  in  itself  only  some 
brief  remarks,  for  previous  analogous  passages  make  it  sufficiently 
intelligible.  Some  things,  however,  peculiar  to  this  cure,  will  re- 
quire extended  explanations. 

Ver.  14,  15. — Matthew  calls  the  sick  boy  (he  was  his  father's 
only  child,  Luke  ix.  38)  a  lunatic  (oe^i]via^6^evo^).  According  to 
ver.  18,  however,  he,  like  Luke  and  Mark,  viewed  the  disease  as 
brought  by  an  evil  spirit  (rrvevpa) .  Now  the  representations  of 
Mark  and  Luke  agree  perfectly  with  epilepsy,*  which,  as  is  well 
known,  being  founded  on  a  morbid  excitement  of  the  nerves  in  the 
lower  part  of  the  body,  is  connected  with  the  changes  of  the  moon. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  secret  sins  of  the  boy  (comp.  on  ver.  21) 
had  destroyed  his  health.  [?]  Mark  and  Luke  plainly  intimate  that 
the  disease  was  not  continuous,  but  that  the  child  fell  into  par- 
oxysms. (Mark  ix.  18,  OTTOV  &v  avrbv  KaraXd^r].  Luke  ix.  39,  j^oytf 
oTro^ojpet  COT'  avrov,  i.  e.,  the  paroxysms  endure  unusually  long.)  The 
gnashing  and  foaming  (rpi&iv  teal  dtypi&iv),  and  the  dying,  wasting 
away  of  the  invalid  (fypaivwdai),  most  graphically  represent  his 
condition.  (The  eUa/lov,  speechless,  of  Mark  refers  only  to  articu- 
late speech,  which  in  such  moments  would  be  suspended ;  it  does 
not  therefore  stand  in  contradiction  to  icpd&iv  [to  utter  inarticulate 
tones]  as  employed  by  Luke.) 

Ver.  16,  17. — The  disciples  had  not  been  able  to  heal  the  sick 
child.  It  is  a  wholly  groundless  conjecture  that  not  all  the  disciples, 
but  only  certain  of  their  number  (and  those  the  weakest  in  faith), 
are  here  alluded  to.  The  words  of  reproof  are  general — so  general 
indeed  that  they  may  not  only  have  included  all  the  disciples,  but 
the  people  at  the  same  time,  and  especially  the  father  of  the  sick 
boy.  The  apostles  appear  here  merely  as  the  representatives  of  the 
whole,  but  on  them  the  rebuke  certainly  falls  most  heavily.  Jesus, 
however,  did  not  stand  there  for  the  -sake  of  the  apostles  alone,  nor 
with  them  alone  had  he  to  deal ;  the  burden  of  all  rested  on  him. 
(The  verb  dvK%Eodai  =•  V?s  to  bear  the  load  of  sin.  The  expression 
ye^ea  diearpafin^vr]  agrees  with  Deut.  xxxii.  5,  where  the  LXX.  give  it 
as  the  rendering  of  VfcVns  I'll) 

Mark  ix.  20-27,  alone  paints  with  exact  and  lively  portraiture 
the  process  of  the  cure.  As  the  boy  drew  near  to  Christ,  a  paroxysm 
seized  him.  Jesus  upon  this  began  a  conversation  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Gergesene  (compare  Mark  v.  9,  seq.),  but  here  only  with  the 
father,  owing  to  the  unconsciousness  of  the  son.  The  object  of  this 
conversation  was,  by  means  of  the  peace  and  security  which  it 

*  I  agree  substantially  with  the  view  given  of  this  narrative  in  the  very  successful 
exposition  of  Dr.  Paulus  (Comment.  Part  II.,  p.  571,  seq.),  with  only  this  difference,  that 
he  has  missed  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  fact  that  the  evangelists  mean  to  refer  the  origin  of 
the  disease  ultimately  to  the  spiritual  world. 


566  MARK  IX.  20-27. 

breathed,  to  still  the  raging  element  and  inspire  confidence.  The 
father  now  obtained  an  opportunity  of  recounting  the  sufferings 
of  his  miserable  child  ;  the  convulsions,  he  states,  often  threatened 
in  a  moment  to  destroy  even  his  life,  by  casting  him  into  fire  or 
water  which  might  be  near.  The  hostile  influence  awakened  within 
him  an  impulse  to  self-destruction.  Jesus  thereupon  commends  to 
him  the  all-prevailing  power  of  faith  (see  as  to  this  subject  on 
Matth.  xvii.  20),  and  calls  upon  him  to  believe.  The  unfortunate 
man  exclaims  (almost-  with  spasmodic  impulse),  morevu,  fiorjOet  juov 
ry  dmoria,  I  believe;  help  my  unbelief.  Thus  the  Saviour  first 
shews  himself  here  in  the  father  as  a  producer  of  faith  (juaievT??? 
marewf)  before  he  heals  the  son.  In  the  struggles  of  earnest  desire, 
the  power  of  faith  is  by  the  help  of  Christ  produced  in  the  unbe- 
lieving soul,  and  then  the  deliverance  is  vouchsafed.  This  passage 
is  one  of  the  most  important  to  our  understanding  the  nature  of 
faith,  as  laid  down  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  not  the  acknowledgment 
of  certain  doctrinal  truths  that  is  here  spoken  of  (that  is  merely  a 
consequence  resulting  from  it) ;  Jesus  here  imparts  no  instruction  ; 
and  the  disciples  also,  supposing  they  had  healed  the  sick  child, 
would  assuredly  not  have  prefaced  the  cure  by  a  discourse  on  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus.  Faith  is  rather  an  internal  moral  state — we 
have  called  it  a  receptive  faculty  (comp.  on  Matth.  viii.  10),  into 
which  Divine  influences  find  ready  admission.  Here,  however,  we 
Bee  that  this  state  of  soul  is  not  to  be  looked  on  as  altogether  inde- 
pendent of  man's  own  efforts.  Earnest  striving  and  prayer  are 
fitted  to  call  it  forth.  Both  these  imply,  it  is  true,  that  the  germ 
of  faith  already  exists  (there  must  always  be  an  vTrooraatg  K^m^ofj^v^Vj 
substance  of  things  hoped  for,  in  the  soul,  if  man  is  to  be  able  to 
pray),  but  no  one  is  to  be  regarded  as  by  nature  wholly  destitute  of 
the  germ  oijj  faith.  By  a  continued  course  of  sin,  however,  it  can  be 
destroyed,  and  so  a  man  be  brought  to  the  marevetv  r&v  daipovuv, 
faith  of  devils  (James  ii.  19),  which,  properly  speaking,  is  no  faith. 
(Compare  Neander's  small  Gelegenheitschr.  p.  31,  seq.)  There  is 
yet,  however,  a  difficulty  here  in  the  circumstance,  that  the  faith  of 
the  father  seems  to  benefit  the  son.  (In  the  same  way,  at  Matth.  viii. 
5,  seq.,  where  the  officer  believes  and  the  servant  is  healed,  and  at 
Matth.  xv.  22,  seq.,  where  the  mother's  faith  stands  in  a  similar 
relation  to  the  cure  of  the  daughter.)  As  unbelief  is  the  ground  of 
a  refusal  to  heal  (compare  on  Matth.  xiii.  58),  it  may  naturally  be 
presumed  that  the  persons  cured  also  exercised  faith.  We  might 
hence  assume  in  these  cases  two  entirely  distinct  processes  :  First, 
the  healing  of  the  sick  person,  whose  faith  Jesus  perceived,  though 
it  did  not  then  express  itself ;  next,  the  awakening  in  the  parents 
or  masters,  of  a  faith  which  still  was  not  connected  with  the  cure. 
Yet  a  connexion  precisely  of  this  kind  seems  to  be  here  asserted. 


MARK  IX.  20-27 ;  MATTHEW  XVII.  19,  20.  567 

At  Mark  ix.  23,  the  cure  of  the  child  is  expressly  conjoined  with 
the  faith  of  the  father.  There  seems  then  in  these  cases  a  special  bond 
of  union.  If  then  we  put  the  inquiry,  whether  the  child  not  grown 
up  could  be  conceived  of  as  exercising  faith  on  behalf  of  his  parents, 
as  well  as  the  parents  on  behalf  of  the  child,  none  perhaps  would 
answer  in  the  affirmative,  and  hence  it  seems  not  improbable  that 
the  child  is  regarded  as  essentially  dependent  on  the  parents.  It  is 
here  very  natural  to  suppose  such  an  union  of  posterity  to  their 
parents  as  is  expressed  in  Heb.  vii.  5,  and  which  also  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  whole  account  of  the  relation  in  which  Adam  and 
Chrst  stand  ,to  the  human  race.  (Comp.  on  Horn.  v.  13,  seq.)  Some- 
thing analogous  also  seems,  according  to  Matth.  viii.  5,  seq., 
to  be  pointed  out  in  the  relation  between  the  master  and  his 
servant ;  it  is,  however,  self-evident  that  in  this  union  the  relation 
is  merely  to  be  viewed  as  accidental,  for  it  may  be  conceived  of  as 
reversed.  Upon  this  conversation  with  the  father  follows  the  cure 
itself,  which,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Gergesene,  again  produces  a  violent 
paroxysm,  ending  in  the  entire  prostration  of  all  his  powers.  (Comp. 
Mark  v.  15.)  The  boy  was  so  exhausted  by  the  violence  of  the 
reaction,  that  they  thought  him  dead  (Mark  ix.  26),  but  the  touch 
of  Jesus  renewed  the  powers  of  life. 

Ver.  19,  20. — After  the  cure  the  disciples  came  to  Jesus,  and 
within  their  narrower  circle  (/car'  Idiav^  Matth.  xvii.  19),  inquired 
why  they  could  not  heal  the  sick  child.  Luke  wholly  omits  this  im- 
portant conversation.  Mark  so  curtails  it  that  its  essential  mean- 
ing cannot  be  perceived,  and  it  seems  to  bear  on  its  surface  a  some- 
what different  sense  ;  and  here  again  his  graphic  power  shews  itself 
rather  in  outward  portaiture.  Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  goes  into 
the  essence  of  things,  especially  in  regard  to  the  discourses  of 
Jesus,  and  we  willingly  excuse  therefore  his  want  of  exactness  in 
outward  details.  Such  points  speak  decisively  enough  for  the  apos- 
tolic origin  of  his  Gospel.  On  the  part  of  the  apostles,  also,  Jesus 
now  reproves  the  dmo-ia,  unbelief,  and  plainly  charges  their  want  of 
faith  with  guilt.  They,  too,  might  have  cried  out  "  help  our  unbe- 
lief." The  position  of  the  apostles  (as  of  men  in  general),  relatively 
to  that  which  is  Divine,  thus  appears  here  as  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  that  of  those  who  were  to  be  healed.  Does  man  wish 
to  receive  heavenly  powers  ?  he  must  stand  waiting  and  expect- 
ant. Still  the  faith  of  the  apostles  was  an  active  principle,  com- 
pared with  the  purely  receptive  faith  of  the  subjects  of  the  healing 
power.  Thus  we  plainly  see  here  different  gradations  of  faith. 
(Compare  what  is  said  more  in  detail  on  Rom.  iii.  21.)  With  the 
reception  of  the  principle  of  life,  there  comes  an  increase  in  the 
soul's  susceptibility  of  it,  and  thus  faith  goes  on  to  perfection  in 
itself.  The  apostles  had  already  for  a  long  time  been  in  communiou 


568  MATTHEW  XVII.  19-21.  ^ 

with  Jesus,  and  never  had  been  without  faith  in  him,  yet  Christ 
marks  here  within  them  the  want  of  the  germ  of  real  faith  (KQKKO<; 
CTiva/rewf),  or  as  one  might  call  it,  of  creative  faith,  for  in  this  char- 
acter it  ought  to  shew  itself  in  them.  Faith  is  thus  a  living  inter- 
nal state,  inherently  developing  itself,  since  the  Divine  principle 
becomes  gradually  predominant  and  effectual  within  the  soul ;  but 
in  all  stages  of  its  development,  the  fundamental  condition  of  the 
heart  (in  which  faith  dwells  [Horn.  x.  9],  and  not  in  the  understand- 
ing), continues  one  and  the  same.  (Compare  on  Matth.  xxi.  21) — 
Jesus  now  holds  up  to  their  view  the  portraiture  of  perfect  faith, 
whose  effect  it  is  that  to  men  nothing  shall  be  impossible.  (Com- 
pare Mark  ix.  23,  -navra  dvvara  rQ>  marevovTi.}  Nothing  can  be  a 
greater  mistake  than  to  divest  these  words  of  their  profound  import 
by  explaining  them  as  hyperbolical.  We  read  at  Matth.  xix.  26, 
respecting  God,  "  With  God  all  things  are  possible"  (compare  the 
parallel  passages  Mark  x.  27  ;  Luke  xviii.  27).  These  words  guide 
us  to  an  understanding  of  the  true  meaning  of  this  eulogium  on 
faith.  Just  because  faith  is  a  susceptibility  to  Divine  influence,  it 
imparts  to  him  in  whom  it  is  developed,  the  very  nature  of  divinity; 
and  under  the  guidance  of  the'  Divine  power  which  animates  the 
believer,  he  is  brought,  according  to  the  degree  of  development  im- 
parted to  him,  into  those  circumstances  in  which  he  must  through 
faith  come  off  victorious.  The  all  things,  therefore,  is  to  be  taken 
in  its  widest  sense,  only  not  to  be  referred  to  the  various  caprices 
which  might  spring  from  mere  unbelieving  curiosity,  but  to  the 
real  wants  of  the  believer.  Such  a  case  of  need  the  disciples  had 
encountered,  but  they  had  neglected  earnestly  to  supplicate  the 
requisite  power  from  on  high.  The  mode,  finally,  of  portraying  the 
omnipotent  power  of  faith  is  figurative.  It  is  conceived  first  in  its 
minimum  state,  then  in  its  maximum  of  power.  (See  as  to  the  KOKKO? 
mvd-rreug  on  Matth.  xiii.  31.  The  overturning  of  mountains  is  an 
expression  selected  unquestionably  in  allusion  to  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Compare  Job  ix.  5;  Zech.  iv.  7.  In  the  New 
Testament,  Paul  repeats  the  statement  at  1  Cor.  xiii.  2.  Another 
similar  figure  to  denote  what  is  impossible  for  man,  but  possi- 
ble for  God  in  believers,  is  seen  at  Luke  xvii.  6.  In  Matth. 
xxi.  21  [Mark  xi.  23],  the  figure  of  the  overturn  of  mountains  is 
repeated.) 

Ver.  21. — The  connexion  of  the  following  verse  with  the  preced- 
ing context  is  obscure.  "  This  kind  (scil.  rwv  6aifj,6vuv}^  according 
to  what  goes  before)  goeth  not  out  but  by  prayer  and  fasting." 

*  Sieffert  (ut  supra,  p.  100)  wishes  to  refer  rovro  rd  yevos  to  the  unbelief  of  the 
apostles  themselves.  But  I  know  of  no  instance  in  which  unbelief,  which  was  something 
negative,  could  be  compared  with  demons  who  must  be  driven  out.  This  view  of  the 
passage  seems  to  me  inadmissible. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  21-23.  569 

(The  fasting  being  viewed  as  a  means  of  cure  accompanying  prayer.) 
The  close  connexion  of  the  words  with  the  reproof  administered  to 
the  apostles  for  their  unbelief,  leads  obviously,  to  this  meaning — 
"  this  obstinate  enemy  was  not  to  be  overcome  in  the  same  way  as 
many  others.  It  was  needful  for  you,  wilh  prayer  and  fasting, 
earnestly  to  strive  after  more  of  the  power  of  faith,  and  then  might 
you  have  been  victorious."  The  prayer  and  fasting  relate  thus  to 
the  disciples  themselves.  And  yet  both  may  be  referred  also  to  the 
person  cured  ;  ye  oughf  to  have  enjoined  on  him  similar  duties,  and 
then  ye  would  have  been  enabled  effectually  to  heal  him.  The 
reference  in  this  view  to  Luke  ix.42.  "  he  restored  him  to  his  father," 
is  certainly  most  correct ;  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Saviour  had 
exhorted  the  father  to  a  wise  treatment  of  his  son.  According  to 
the  connexion  of  ideas  in  Mark,  the  reference  of  prayer  and  fasting 
is  mainly  to  the  cured  boy,  who  probably  had  by  sins  of  impurity 
plunged  himself  into  this  nervous  disorder.*  In  Matthew  it  is  per- 
haps best  to  combine  both  references. 

Ver.  22,  23. — In  the  concluding  verses  the  evangelists  are  en- 
tirely agreed  in  introducing  a  new  mention  of  the  Saviour's  sufferings 
(compare  on  Matth.  xvi.  21).  The  words  stand  without  any  visible 
connexion  with  what  precedes.  It  is,  however,  not  improbable  that 
from  time  to  time  the  thought  of  his  approaching  sufferings  struck 
Jesus,  and  then  as  is  here  presented  in  the  narrative,  he  suddenly 
expressed  what  he  felt  to  his  disciples,  especially  when  he  withdrew 
from  his  larger  sphere  of  labour  into  solitude  and  the  circle  of  his 
confidential  friends.  (This  is  indicated  at  Mark  ix.  30,  by  the  words 
oik  ijdetev  Iva  rig  yvo>  [sc.  avrov].')  This  declaration,  however,  must 
only  have  been  at  the  time  of  a  fragmentary  nature,  for  the  disci- 
ples could  not  reconcile  themselves  to  the  idea  of  their  Messiah's  suf- 
ferings— that  Messiah  from  whom  they  expected  the  end  of  all 
suffering  (Mark  ix.32  ;  Luke  ix.  45,  r\yvoovv  ~b  p^a  rovro).  Mean- 
while the  utterance  of  that  deep  and  anguished  feeling  carried  them 
away  .involuntarily  (Matth.  xvii.  23,  eAVTrrjdr)aav  a^odpa),  but  the 
majestic  gravity  which  marked  his  entire  character  and  bearing, 
deterred  them  from  asking  further  as  to  the  transaction  he  had 
alluded  to  (tyopovvro  ipurfjoai  in  Mark  and  Luke);  there  thus 
remained  for  them  only  the  obscure  impression  of  some  mighty 
and  fearful  event  awaiting  them. 

*  See  ou  the  contrary  Traidiodev,  from  a  child,  Mark  ix.  21. — [E. 


570  MATTHEW  XVII.  24-27. 

§  34.  THE  COIN  (STATER)  IN  THE  FISH'S  MOUTH. 

(Matth.  xvii.  24-27.) 

Before  proceeding  to  the  occurrence  itself  which  is  here  re- 
corded, we  must  cast  a  glance  at  the  connexion.  Mark  ix.  33,  as 
also  Matthew,  makes  the  Lord  come  to  Capernaum,  but  connects 
immediately  with  his  arrival  the  narrative  o'f  the  conversation  as  to 
who  should  he  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  relates 
most  minutely  that  this  conversation  took  place  in  the  house,  and 
was  introduced  by  a  question  put  by  Jesus,  as  to  what  they  had 
talked  of  by  the  way.  Now,  according  to  the  view  of  Dr.  Paulus 
(Comment.  Part  ii.,  p.  621)  Peter  was  not  present  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  conversation,  but  came  in  subsequently  while  it  was 
going  on  (Matth.  xviii.  21),  and  it  is  simply  to  account  for  his  ab- 
sence that  this  narrative  of  Peter's  taking  the  fish  is  inserted  by 
Matthew.  But,  for  this  conjecture  the  whole  account  gives  not  the 
slightest  occasion  ;  nay,  Mark  ix.  35  rather  mentions  the  twelve  as  all 
present  at  the  commencement  of  the  conversation.  The  expression 
7rpo<7eA0fc)v  avrw,  coming  to  him,  at  Matth.  xviii.  21,  merely  means 
that  Peter  came  close  to  him  when  addressing  Jesus.  If  the  evan- 
gelist had  distinctly  intended  to  represent  Peter  as  absent,  he  would 
have  stated  so  in  plainer  terms.  It  is  far  more  natural  to  suppose 
that  Matthew  added  in  conclusion  this  little  narrative  of  Peter's 
taking  the  fish,  because  it  happened  just  at  the  time,  and  in  order 
that  he  might  introduce  once  more  in  chap,  xviii.  a  more  length- 
ened collection  of  various  fragments  of  discourse  which  he  did  not 
wish  to  interrupt.  Moreover,  Christ's  conversation  with  Peter  as  to 
the  tribute,  might  have  been  considered  of  importance  in  respect  to 
the  discourse  which  follows,  as  will  be  afterwards  shewn.  The 
character  of  the  discourses  given  in  Matth.  xviii.,  by  no  means 
demands,  as  will  afterwards  be  shewn,  the  absence  of  Peter,  even  if 
they  were  spoken  successively  in  the  same  order  in  which  we  read 
them  in  Matthew.  Peter's  taking  the  fish  was  undoubtedly  (hi 
their  proximity  to  the  sea)  the  work  of  a  few  moments,  and  we  may 
therefore  justly  suppose  him  present  at  what  follows. 

As  regards  the  incident  itself,  however,  recorded  in  Matth.  xvii. 
24-27,  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  natural  explanation  which 
Dr.  Paulus  (ut  supra)  has  given  of  it,  brings  forward  points  that  de- 
serve consideration.  The  narrative,  as  ordinarily  understood,  con- 
tains much  that  might  surprise  us.  It  is  strange,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  coin  should  have  been  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish.  It  seems 
more  to  the  purpose  to  conceive  of  it  as  in  the  belly,  especially  as 
the  fish  was  caught  by  an  dyKtarpov  (hamus,  fishing-hook),  the  use 


MATTHEW  XVII.  24.  571 

of  which  presupposes  th.£  opening  of  the  mouth.  In  the  next  place, 
the  object  aimed  at  seems  to  stand  in  no  fitting  relation  to  the 
miracle.  The  miracles  of  Jesus  have  always  a  definite  reference  to 
the  well-being  of  man,  or  they  are  designed  to  authenticate  his 
Messiahship,  and  prepare  the  way  for  faith  in  it.  We  trace  here  no 
connexion  with  either  of  these  objects,  for  the  occurrence  referred  to 
Peter  alone,  who  was  already  convinced  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  ; 
the  address  of  Jesus  (ver.  25)  presupposes  faith  as  already  existing 
in  him.  Besides,  as  Jesus  was  in  Capernaum,  even  if  his  bag  was 
empty  (John  xii.  6  ;  xiii.  29),  he  might  in  this  place  have  obtained 
the  small  sum  in  a  more  simple  way.  Thus  the  proposal  to  explain 
the  expression  evp-rjaei^  emm/po,  thou  slialt  find  a  stater  (ver.  27),  as 
meaning  "  thou  shalt  obtain  the  coin  (stater)  for  the  fish"  (by  sell- 
ing it),  will  appear  as  not  so  entirely  inadmissible.  [?]  For, 
even  with  this  explanation,  the  transaction,  taken  symbolically 
bears  a  beautiful  meaning,  as  shewing  how  Christ,  as  the  Lord 
of  nature,  draws  what  he  needs  from  the  great  treasure-house 
of  the  Father.  We  are  at  first  the  more  tempted  to  accede  to  this 
view,  from  the  remarkable  fact  that  at  the  close  of  the  history  the 
Usual  conclusion  of  miraculous  narratives  is  wanting — namely,  that 
Peter,  at  the  command  of  Jesus  both  did  and  experienced  what  had 
been  said  to  him.  But  looking  without  prejudice  at  the  narrative, 
we  cannot  conceal  the  difficulties  presented  by  this  explanation  of 
Dr.  Paulus.  Taking  the  words  at  ver.  27  as  we  find  them  "and  on 
opening  its  mouth  thou  wilt  find  a  stater"  (nal  dvoigag  rb  oro^ia  avrov 
evprjaeic;  arari^a)^  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  narrator  means  to 
say  that  the  stater  (coin)  would  be  found  in  the  mouth.  Granting 
indeed  that  evpiaitKiv  may  mean  to  acquire,  to  obtain  (without  de- 
fining the  way  in  which  a  thing  is  obtained),  still  the  fact  that  the 
acquisition  of  the  piece  of  money  is  so  immediately  connected  with 
the  opening  of  the  mouth,  unquestionably  is  in  contradiction  to  the 
opinion  that  the  money  was  to  be  raised  from  the  sale  of  the  fish. 
The  remark  of  Paulus  on  this  point,  that  the  opening  of  the  mouth 
refers  merely  to  his  taking  the  fish  off  the  hook,  and  that  this  was 
needful  because  it  would  otherwise  have  died  more  speedily,  and  so 
would  have  been  of  less  value,  is  obviously  too  far-fetched.  It  is 
clear  that  this  mode  of  explaining  away  what  is  supernatural  is  sug- 
gested not  by  the  text  itself,  but  by  reflection.  In  the  next  place, 
it  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  that  plainly  only  one  fish  was  intended  to  be 
caught.  Paulus  will  have  it  that  ixOvg,jish.  is  to  be  taken  collectively, 
but  the  addition  of  KP&TOS,  first,  altogether  forbids  this.  (Compare 
Fritzsche  on  the  passage.)  But  in  poor  Capernaum,  where  fish 
were  common,  the  sum  of  money  here  named  could  not  possibly 
have  been  obtained  for  a  single  fish.  As  then  it  is  the  interpre- 
ter's first  duty  to  render  faithfully  the  text  of  his  author,  we  must 


MATTHEW  XVII.  24. 

maintain,  that  Matthew  means  to  relate  that  Jesus  commanded 
Peter  to  take  a  fish,  and  foresaw  that  it  would  bear  a  stater  in  its 
mouth.  The  result,  however,  thus  yielded  by  our  interpretation, 
we  cannot  leave  standing  in  opposition  to  the  character  of  Christ  ; 
and  it  becomes  a  question,  whether,  notwithstanding  the  above  ob- 
jections, this  miracle  can  be  made  to  harmonize  with  his  general 
procedure.  The  main  question  to  be  settled  is  this,  whether  the 
form  of  miraculous  action  here  exhibited  was  in  opposition  to  the 
fundamental  laws  which  controlled  the  Saviour's  action  :  the  other 
objections  will  then  disappear  of  their  own  accord,  or  will  lose  their 
weight.  It  must  be  maintained  as  a  leading  principle,  that  every 
miraculous  act  of  Christ  had  an  object  connected  with  his  whole 
Messianic  work.  'What  can  have  been  the  object  of  the  present 
miracle  ? 

Peter's  answer  to  the  collectors,  that  the  Lord  would  pay  the 
contribution,  implied  a  failure  to  recognise  his  peculiar  posi- 
tion ;  and  although  Jesus  might  appeal  to  his  Divine  Sonship, 
which,  at  a  former  period,  Peter  had  already  confessed,  yet  the 
Saviour  seems  to  have  wished  still  more  deeply  to  impress  on  his 
mind  a  view  of  his  exalted  dignity.  [Peter  had,  rashly  and  unau- 
thorized, conceded  that  Jesus  was  bound  to  pay  the  tax,  comp.  ver. 
25.  This  the  Saviour  teaches  him  ;  this  too  he  intends  to  teach 
the  receivers  of  the  tribute,  and  that  by  actual  proof.  He  shows 
them  that  he  is  Lord  not  only  of  the  temple,  but  of  the  whole 
world,  and  that  his  submission  to  the  tribute  was  purely  voluntary, 
not  in  the  sligtest  degree  obligatory.] 

Ver.  24.  —  As  respects  the  relative  value  of  the  money  which  this 
narrative  refers  to,  the  oraT?jp  is  =  4  drachmas  or  Roman  denarii. 
These  formed  a  Jewish  shekel.  The  didpa%n°v  is  therefore  —  half  a 
shekel,  i.  e.,  to  about  10  good  groschen.  The  stater  thus  amounted 
to  20  good  groschen.*  This  sum  of  itself,  f  and  still  more  the  con- 
versation which  follows,  shews  that  it.is  not  a  civil  tax  but  a  temple 
tax  that  is  here  spoken  of.  According  to  Exodus  xxx.  13,  seq.,  every 
Israelite  was  required  to  pay  such  a  contribution  ;  and  in  the  time  of 
Josephus  (Antiq.,  xviii.,  9,  1),  even  the  foreign  Jews  paid  it.  The 
question  put  by  the  collectors  of  this  assessment,  whether  Jesus 
would  pay  it,  doubtless  arose  from  their  believing  that,  as  a  theocratic 
teacher,  he  would  regard  himself  as  free  from  such  an  impost.  But 
Peter,  to  whom  the  question  was  addressed  in  the  absence  of  Jesus, 
believed,  that  with  his  strictness  in  religious  observance,  he  would 
make  it  a  point  to  pay  the  sacred  tax,  and  answered  affirmatively. 

*  The  good  groschen  is  equal  to  rather  more  than  3  cents.     The  Marien-groschen  is  of 
less  value.  —  [T. 


f  The  double  article  also  oi  rd  didpaxpa  %aft/3dvovref,  indicates  a  reference  to  certain 
appointed  persons  entrusted  with  the  collection  of  the  temple  offerings. 


MATTHEW  XVII.  25-27.  573 

Ver.  25,  26. — Jesus  perceived  at  once  that  on  the  part  of  Peter 
this  arose  from  defective  views.  In  his  answer  he  had  contemplated 
Jesus  rather  under  the  aspect  of  his  legal  piety  than  of  his  ideal  dig- 
nity, and  Jesus  therefore  anticipated  his  remark  (rrpotyOaoev  avrov)  by 
the  question  "  What  thinkest  thou,  Simon  ?"  he  awakens  by  this 
inquiry  the  perception  of  his  elevation,  as  well  as  that  of  Peter 
himself,  above  the  temple-service  of  the  old  dispensation.  Jesus 
here  runs  a  parallel  between  earthly  kings  and  earthly  tribute  (TK^TJ, 
custom-duties  on  goods,  itfjvoos,  head-money  on  persons'),  and  the 
heavenly  King,  and  spiritual  contributions  ;  as  with  the  kings  their 
own  are  free  from  taxes,  so  also  in  the  things  of  heaven.  For,  what 
God's  children  possess  belongs  to  God — they  have  no  property  ex- 
clusively their  own — they  contribute  out  of  and  into  their  own 
purse — they  are  therefore  free.  Jesus  places  himself  here  on  a  level 
with  Peter,  but  it  is  obvious  that  from  this  figurative  mode  of 
speaking  nothing  can  be  inferred  respecting  the  import  of  "  Son  of 
God."  The  meaning  is  simply  this — we  belong  to  a  higher  order 
of  things  than  that  to  which  the  commandment  in  question  (Exod. 
xxx.  13)  applies  ;  not  for  us  did  God  give  it,  we  pay  to  the  temple 
not  a  poor  tax,  but  we  ourselves  belong  to  it  wholly,  with  all  that 
we  are  and  have.  Jesus  thus  elevates  Peter  to  his  own  spiritual 
level — a  position  for  which  he  certainly  was  not  yet  fully  trained, 
but  to  which,  as  a-  renewed  man,  he  already  belonged.  The  Lord's 
words  at  the  same  time  clearly  prove  that  he  in  general  acknow- 
ledged and  honoured  the  Old  Testament  economy  as  of  Divine 
institution  ;  unless  this  be  assumed,  the  words  had  no  meaning. 
But  he  contemplated  the  whole  temple  service  in  its  preparatory 
character,  and  led  on  the  disciples  so  to  view*  it. 

Ver.  27. — While  thus  conscious  that  he  stood  above  the  Old 
Testament  economy  (comp.  xii.  8),  the  Saviour  yet  subjected  him- 
self to  it ;  as,  in  general,  up  to  the  completion  of  his  work  on  earth, 
he  in  no  respect  assailed  or  withdrew  from  the  the  existing  order  of 
the  Divine  service.  Only  with  Christ's  atoning  death  was  the  law 
completed  and  finished,  and  a  new  form  of  religious  life  arose  in  the 
church,  in  which  the  commands  of  the  Old  Testament  acquired  their 
true  spiritual  meaning.  Here,  in  this  subordination  to  the  law,  does 
Jesus  make  obvious  the  weakness  of  those  around  him  (see  as  to 
oitavdaMfraOai  on  Matth.  xviii.  6);  he  wished  neither  to  give  them 
offence  nor  lead  them  to  believe  that  he  did  not  reverence  the  law 
of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  certain,  also,  that  at  the  basis  of  this  lies 
the  general  principle  "  it  is  becoming  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness" 
(noe-rrov  earl  -nkrip&aiu  reaaav  dwaioovvrjv.  Comp.  on  Matth.  iii.  15.) 


574  MATTHEW  XVIII.  1. 

§  35.  ON  THE  CHARACTER  OP  THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  KINGDOM. 

(Matth.  xviii.  1-35  ;  Mark  ix.  33-50  ;  Luke  ix.  46-56.) 

The  words  dvaorpt^o^iv^v  avr&v  ev  rq  Fa/UAa/a  (Matth.  xvii.  22), 
again  seem  to  unsettle  the  whole  chronological  connexion  hy  their 
vagueness;  nor  do  the  parallel  passages  in  Mark  and  Luke  give 
any  more  certain  data.  The  contents,  however,  of  the  succeeding 
context,  make  it  probable  that  no  great  interval  in  this  instance 
elapsed  between  what  had  preceded  and  what  now  follows.  The 
conversation  as  to  pre-eminence  in  the  kingdom  of  God  in  which 
the  disciples  were  engaged  on  the  way  to  Capernaum  (Mark  ix.  33), 
may  have  been  occasioned  by  the  transfiguration,  and  the  prefer- 
ence there  shewn  for  certain  of  their  number,  and  as  all  the  three 
narrators  give  exactly  the  same  connexion  of  events,  the  possibility 
becomes  a  probability.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  Evangelists 
record  the  event  each  with  details  of  his  own.  Luke  is  the  shortest ; 
he  has  merely  the  admonition  to  humility.  Mark  gives  also  the 
warning  against  offences  greatly  expanded,  as  is  his  manner.  Mat- 
thew adds  still  further  particulars.  It  is  not  impossible  so  to 
conceive  of  the  antecedent  circumstances,  that  all  these  different 
points  may  on  this  occasion  have  been  made  by  Christ  the  subjects 
of  conversation,  simply  on  account  of  what  had  fallen  out  among 
the  apostles.  The  evangelists  themselves  give  details  from  which 
we  may  infer  the  following  to  have  been  the  course  of  events.  The 
disciples  not  merely  conversed  as  to  their  pre-eminence  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  but  fell  inlo  a  sharp  contest  on  the  point.  (Hence  the 
admonition  at  Mark  ix.  50,  elprjvevere  KV  aAA^/lo/c.)  In  the  alterca- 
tion, they  not  merely  boasted  the  one  over  the  other,  but  by  hard 
words  wounded  each  other's  feelings  ;  nay,  the  disciples  by  this 
gave  such  offence  to  each  other,  or  to  any  individual  who  might  be 
present,  that  their  faith  might  have  been  shaken  alike  in  the 
reality  of  any  higher  life  as  existing  among  the  Saviour's  com- 
panions, and  in  his  own  exalted  character  and  destination.  This 
would  explain  how  Christ  should  successively  have  discoursed  of 
humility,  of  offences,  of  grace  towards  sinners,  of  reconciliation.  This 
view,  however,  rests  simply  on  conjecture  as  to  the  contents  of  that 
conversation  between  the  disciples.  It  is  also  possible  that  Matthew, 
according  to  his  custom,  has  again  united  together  portions  of  kindred 
discourses.0  The  tie  which  in  this  chapter  connects  the  various  ele- 
ments, is  the  endeavour  to  depict  in  the  Saviour's  words  the  true 

*  Compare  here  the  remarks  on  Matth.  xiv.  1,  and  the  introductory  observations  to 
chap.  xix.  1. 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  1.  575 

character  of  the  children  of  God.  Much  had  occurred  which  might  be 
viewed  as  attributing  to  the  disciples  something  of  outward  import- 
tance  ;  especially  might  Christ's  very  address  to  Peter  as  to  the 
temple-taxes  (Matth.  xvii.  25),  be  so  misunderstood.*  To  this  error 
Matthew  now  opposes  the  spiritual  nature  of  discipleship  as  standing 
in  direct  contradiction  to  an  earthly  domination.  Yet  the  Saviour 
does  not  deny  a  difference  of  position  to  be  occupied  in  the  future 
kingdom  of  God  ;  he  merely  sets  forth  that  frame  of  mind  by 
which  all  abuse  of  this  truth  is  obviated. 

Yer.  1. — Most  graphically  does  Mark  ix.  33,  seq.,  again  depict 
the  scene.  The  conversation  as  to  who  should  be  the  greatest  had 
taken  place  by  the  way.  In  the  house  our  Lord  questions  the  dis- 
ciples on  it,  and  they,  conscious  of  guilt,  are  silent,  whereupon,  by  a 
symbolic  act,  he  sets  clearly  before  their  view  the  nature  of  God's 
kingdom.  First,-  however,  it  IB  to  be  carefully  marked  here,  that 
the  Saviour  by  no  means  denies  that  the  apostles  possess  special 
dignity  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  which  indeed  he  could  not  do,  for 
it  is  promised  them  by  himself  (comp.  on  Matth.  xix.  28).  Further, 
he  does  not  deny  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  his  different 
disciples,  for  this  he  himself  in  like  manner  confirmed  (see  on  Matth. 
xvii.  1).  Thus  the  error  of  the  disciples  did  not  consist  in  assuming 
a  distinction  among  the  members  of  the  kingdom,  or  in  cherishing 
the  conviction  of  their  own  exalted  calling.  It  lay  rather  in  their 
forming  low  and  earthly  conceptions  of  that  calling,  in  confounding 
supremacy  in  the  kingdom  of  God  with  dominion  in  the  king- 
doms of  earth.  True,  the  very  idea  of  a  kingdom,  presupposes 
government  and  subordination  ;  but  in  the  kingdom  of  God  the 
government  is  specifically  different  from  earthly  rule.  This  dis- 
tinction the  Saviour  here  developes,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  Mark 
ix.  35,  he  represents  the  first  in  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  last,  the 
lord  as  the  servant  of  all.  (Comp.  on  Matth.  xx.  28.)  Thus  in 
the  Divine  kingdom  the  power  of  self-sacrificing,  devoted,  self- 
abasing  love  (which,  in  the  Saviour  himself,  is  seen  in  its  glorious 
perfection),  is  the  one  turning-point  on  which  all  pre-eminence 
depends ;  while  conversely,  in  the  world,  he  who  rules  is  wont  to 
make  use  of  the  governed  simply  for  himself,  his  own  benefit,  his 
reputation  and  glory.  The  fleshly  minds  of  the  disciples  therefore, 
mistaking  the  idea  of  God's  kingdom,  had  induced  them  in  the 
future  manifestation  of  Christ's  glory  to  look  for  the  gratification 
of  selfish  hopes.  These  the  Lord  overthrows  by  intimating  that 
only  he  who  has  divested  himself  of  all  self-seeking,  and  who  lives 
in  pure  love  and  lowly  self-renunciation,  shall  there  reign,  or  exert 
commanding  influence.  (The  rig  peifav  so-iv,  who  is  the  greater, 
clearly  indicates  that  all  the  disciples  were  united  in  the  belief  that 

*  So  we  find  it  in  Clemens  Alex,  quis  dives  salvetur,  chap.  21.  . 


576  MATTHEW  XVIII.  1-4. 

they,  as  standing  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  Lord,  were  called 
alike  to  exercise  the  most  important  influence  in  the  kingdom  of 
God  : — their  only  point  of  dispute  was  who  among  themselves  should 
be  the  greater,  the  more  influential.  The  occurrence  related  at 
Matth.  xvii.  1,  might  easily  occasion  such  reflections.) 

Ver.  2-4. — Very  naturally,  according  to  the  account  of  Matthew, 
is  there  subjoined  here  the  symbolic  act  of  Jesus  in  placing  a  child 
(jratdiov  is  not  =12%,  a  slave  or  servant,  but  with  reference  to  regen- 
eration a  child,  one  who  is  new-born)  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  in 
him  setting  forth  the  character  of  those  who  should  have  influence 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  it  is  not  the  character  of  this  indi- 
vidual child  that  he  here  speaks  of  (according  to  the  legend,  it  was 
the  martyr  Ignatius),  is  shewn  at  once  by  the  immediately  following 
words,  become  as  children.  Jesus  merely  brings  forward  in  this 
individual  child  the  general  character  of  children,  as  a  model  for 
the  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  For,  although  the  general 
sinfulness  of  human  nature  certainly  shews  itself  at  once  in  children, 
yet  does  humility  and  an  unassuming  disposition  peculiarly  distin- 
guish the  child's  nature  ;  the  king's  son  is  not  ashamed  to  play  with 
the  son  of  a  beggar.  This  unassuming  disposition  is  here  the  point 
of  comparison.  Certainly  it  is  exercised  by  children  unconsciously, 
while  on  the  part  of  believers  it  is  to  be  deliberately  cherished.  The 
comparison  therefore  does  not  on  all  points  hold  good,  which  it 
could  not  possibly  do,  for  the  reason,  that  earthly  relations  present 
no  perfect  analogy  to  the  spiritual  nature  which  is  the  subject  of 
the  comparison.  Into  such  an  unassuming  frame  does  the  Lord 
now  exhort  that  the  disciples  to  turn  their  minds  (orptyeoOai  to  change 
their  spiritual  direction  ;  instead  of  aspiring  to  a  high  position,  they 
must  descend  to  a  humble  one),  then  will  they  find  entrance  to  the 
heavenly  kingdom.  The  passage  is  thus  wholly  parallel  to  the  im- 
portant verse,  John  iii.  3,  for  the  yivEodai  &$  Traitiiov,  become  as  a 
child,  is  nothing  else  than  the  new  birth,  in  which  alone  such  as 
unassuming  child-like  feeling  can  be  implanted.  By  the  resolutions 
and  efforts  of  the  natural  man  it  cannot  be  produced.  As  an  evi- 
dence of  this  child-like  feeling  Christ  brings  prominently  forward  the 
raneivovv  tavrov,  humbling  one's  self,  in  opposition  to  the  vipovv  iavrov, 
exalting  one's  self;  as  the  child,  in  whatever  circumstances  placed, 
will  unassumingly  be  content  with  a  lowly  position,  so  should  also  the 
new-born  saint,  instead  of  climbing  to  high  stations,  descend  to  the 
secure  vale  of  humility.  The  expression  "  humbleth  himself  retains 
here  its  widest  meaning,  inasmuch  as  even  in  the  regenerate,  con- 
stant and  positive  effort  is  needful  to  keerj  down  the  ambitious 
aspirings  of  the  old  man.  The  humbling  may  therefore  be  viewed  as 
a  special  and  stronger  expression  for  becoming  a  child,  and  the  being 
greater  in  the  kingdom  as  contrasted  with  the  mere  entrance  into  it. 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  5.  577 

Ver.  5. — Matthew,  who  alone  gives  the  preceding  verses,  shews 
himself  here  again  exceedingly  exact  in  detailing  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses. According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  who  do  not  give  these 
verses,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  understand  the  presenting  of  the  child, 
nay,  it  acquires  with  them  a  different  meaning.  They  both  speak 
directly  of  "  the  receiving  of  children,"  whence  also  Mark  (ix.  36), 
can  add  KvajKahiadpevog  avro,  taking  it  in  his  arms,  an  act  not  in 
immediate  accordance  with  the  representation  of  Matthew  ;  for 
since,  with  him,  the  child  was  simply  a  symbol  of  humility,  it  must 
in  these  circumstances  have  been  a  meaningless  act  to  embrace  him. 
(In  Luke  ii.  28,  the  term  IvayKaJii&adat  —  de^adai  elg  aynaka^  refers 
to  little  children,  in  whom  alone  the  character  of  humility  is  purely 
developed.  The  verb  Trpooicaheoaodai  at  Matth.  xviii.  2,  does  not 
contradict  this  ;  it  is  only  necessary  that  we  do  not  understand  it 
exactly  as  meaning  sucklings.)  It  accords  well,  however,  with  the 
train  of  thought  in  Mark  and  Luke,  which  attaches  to  -naidiov 
mainly  the  idea  of  a  beloved,  a  dear  one.  Still  the  question 
arises,  how  we  shall  trace  here  the  general  course  of  thought ;  for 
although  Matthew  primarily  applies  the  presentation  of  the  child 
to  a  different  purpose,  yet  he  also  proceeds  in  v.  5  to  the  "  receiv- 
ing" (dexeadai),  and  in  v.  6  to  its  opposite,  so  that  from  this  agree- 
ment of  the  three  Evangelists,  we  must  hold  that  these  words  were 
spoken  on  the  occasion  referred  to.  It  certainly  seems  from  the 
connexion  here,  most  natural  to  consider  the  "  receiving"  as  an  act 
of  unassuming  self-humbling  love,  so  that  it  connects  itself  with  the 
declaration  -rrp&ros  navTuv  didnovog,  the  first,  the  servant  of  all  (Mark 
ix.  35).  But  with  this  view,  the  last  clause  at  Luke  ix.  48,  he  that 
is  least  among  you,  etc.,  little  harmonizes,  for  it  is  there  apparent 
that  $ie  disciples  are  themselves  the  little  ones  who  are  to  be  re- 
ceived, not  the  recipients.  (Compare  also  Mark  ix.  41,  from  which 
this  plainly  follows.)  The  connexion  may  therefore  better  be 
understood  thus,  "Be  ye  eager  to  be'come  lowly,  little-noticed  as 
this  child,  for  the  little  ones  (the  regenerate  who  have  the  true 
child's  feeling)  are  very  dear  and  precious  to  the  Lord,  so  that  he 
regards  what  is  done  to  them  as  done  to  himself."  According  to 
this  chain  of  ideas,  then,  that  which  Matthew  relates  must  be  held 
as  having  previously  occurred ;  for  it  is  this  which  contains  the 
ground  of  Christ's  attachment  to  them.  Haidiov  =  fuiepog  ver. 
10,  is  then  the  symbol  of  the  regenerate.  (See  on  Matth.  x. 
42.)  The  only  thing  still  remaining  obscure  is  how  the  expres- 
sion "he  who'receiveth  a  little  child,  receiveth  me"  should  precisely 
in  this  discourse  be  used  to  denote  God's  fatherly  love  for  his  spirit- 
ual children.  The  simplest  explanation  is,  that  this  form  of 
description  is  occasioned  by  the  preceding  mention  (made  distinctly 
by  Matth.)  of  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  With  this,  as 

VOL.  L— 37 


578  MATTHEW  XVIII.  5. 

something  future,  stands  closely  connected  the  receiving,  as  that 
which  is  present,  so  that  the  meaning  is  —  "  He  who  thus  humbles 
himself  in  true  lowliness,  is  great  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  nay  even 
amidst  the  sufferings  of  the  regenerate  on  earth,  they  are  so  precious 
to  the  Lord  that  he  holds  what  is  done  to  them  as  done  to  himself;" 
(as  to  the  thought  itself,  compare  Matth.  x.  40,  seq.,  where  it  already 
occurred  in  another  connexion). 

In  Mark  (ix.  38-41),  and  Luke  (ix.  49,  50),  there  follows  here  a 
question  by  John  with  the  answer  of  Jesus,  which  Matthew  has 
omitted,  as  not  beloning  to  the  main  scope  of  the  discourse,  but  as 
rather  interrupting  it.  The  brevity  with  which  Luke  touches  this 
intervening  question  of  John,  would  have  left  it  in  many  respects 
obscure,  had  not  the  more  exact  account  of  Mark  enabled  us  to  trace 
the  connexion.  For  the  preceding  words  of  Jesus,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  receiving  the  little  ones,  plainly  refer  to  the  relation  in 
which  the  disciples  stood  to  those  around  them.  John,  who  might 
not  have  penetrated  fully  into  the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  words, 
selects  a  circumstance  which  had  perhaps  occurred  at  the  time,  and 
had  particularly  struck  himself,  and  lays  it  before  the  Saviour. 
Some  one,  it  would  appear,  who  doubtless  had  seen  our  Lord's 
miracles,  or  those  of  the  apostles,  had  himself  made  the  attempt  to 
heal  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  The  disciples,  in  their  selfish  exclusive- 
ness,  saw  in  this  an  infringement  on  their  spiritual  jurisdiction,  and 
inasmuch  as  he  did  not  habitually  attach  himself  to  the  company 
of  Jesus,  had  interdicted  him.*  This  the  Saviour  reproves,  and 
refers  his  disciples  to  that  comprehensive  love  and  humility  of  the 
true  children  of  God,  who  child-like  receive  and  acknowledge  all 
that  is  akin  to  themselves,  under  whatever  form  they  find  it.  The 
individual  referred  to  is  thus  viewed  as  one  befriended  J>y  the 
benevolent  Saviour  of  men,  and  from  whom  the  disciples  might 
expect  support,  it  being  at  the  same  time  implied  that  he  would 
not  be  left  without  a  blessing.  Thus  understood,  this  incident 
takes  its  place  most  fittingly  in  the  context  ;  it  is,  as  it  were, 
an  example  of  how  the  Lord  does  good  to  those  who  favour 
his  disciples,  even  when  these-  latter  cannot  understand  aright 
the  proofs  of  love.  The  sententious  phrase  in  which  Jesus  ex- 
presses the  doctrine  which  he  wished  on,  this  occasion  to  teach 
his  disciples,  "  he  who  is  not  against  you  is  for  you"  (be;  OVK,  eon  icad' 
vH&v  VTTKP  vp&v  t-CTTi),  is  parallel  to  the  statement  at  Matth.  xii.  30, 
"  he  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me"  (6  p)  &v  juer'  fyov  /car'  fyov 
which  is  found  also  at  Luke  xi.  23.  Both  are  Equally  true  of 


*  A  narrative  precisely  similar  is  recorded  at  Numbers  xi.  27,  seq.  When  Elded  and 
Medad  prophesied  in  the  camp,  Joshua  said  to  Moses,  "  My  lord  Moses,  forbid  them." 
But  Moses  replies,  "  Enviest  thou  for  my  sake  ?  would  God  all  the  Lord's  people  prophe- 
sied, and  that  the  Lord  would  put  his  Spirit  upon  them!" 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  5,  0.  579 

different  characters  and  grades  of  vocation.  He  whose  calling  is  to 
spiritual  labour,  is  against  the  Lord  and  his  cause,  if  he  do  not 
positively  further  them  ;  he  whose  vocation  is  of  a  lower  grade,  who 
may  he  placed  in  a  state  of  spiritual  dependence  on  others  (as  the 
people  were  ruled  by  the  Pharisees),  is  in  favour  of  God's  cause,  if 
he  keep  himself  free  from  the  generally  prevailing  hostile  influences, 
and  so  continue  susceptible  of  the  Divine.  It  remains,  however,  a 
singular  circumstance,  that,  even  in  Christ's  own  times,  persons 
should  have  used  his  name  for  the  working  of  miracles  without 
attaching  themselves  to  his  followers  ;  it  is  a  proof  of  the  general 
notice  which  his  miracles  had  attracted.  At  a  later  period,  we 
find,  in  the  history  of  Simon  Magus  (Acts  viii.)  and  the  seven 
sons  of  Sceva  (xix.  13,  seq.)  something  of  the  same  kind.  If,  how- 
ever, the  apostles  judge  of  these  men  in  a  way  wholly  different  from 
what  the  Saviour  does  here,  the  cause  of  the  difference  must  assur- 
edly be  sought  in  the  motive  from  which  such  a  use  of  the  name  of 
Jesus  proceeded.  It  might,  as  in  the  case  of  the  person  here  men- 
tioned, flow  from  faith — perhaps  an  unconscious  faith — in  Christ's 
heavenly  power,  and  was  therefore  to  be  borne  with  (although  the 
declarations  of  Jesus  respecting  him  certainly  do  not  exclude  the 
necessity  of  his  being  further  instructed,  and  made  to  know  that  the 
special  object  of  Christ's  coming  was  not  to  impart  the  gift  of  work- 
ing miracles,  but  to  change  the  human  heart) ;  but  on  the  other 
hand  it  might  proceed  from  motives  wholly  impure,  as  with  the  sons 
of  Sceva,  and  must  in  that  case  be  unconditionally  resisted.  For, 
these  men  used  the  name  of  Jesus  as  a  peculiarly  powerful  form  of 
adjuration,  just  as  they  would  other  formulae  of  their  art,  for  their 
sellish  objects.  Thus,  it  is  not  the  outward  act  itself,  but  rather 
the  feeling  from  which  it  flows,  that  determines  its  being  admissible 
or  not. 

Ver.  6. — The  idea  which  follows  of  the  aicavdaki&iv  Zva  T&V 
jut/cpwv,  offending  one  of  the  little  ones,  connects  itself  most  appro*- 
priately  with  the  receiving,  of  ver.  5.  He  merely  expresses  the 
opposite  thought,  so  that  the  sense  of  these  words  is,  "  the  little 
ones  are  so  precious  to  the  Lord,  that  whatever  good  is  done  them 
he  looks  on  as  done  to  himself,  and  rewards  it  ;  whatever  evil  is  in- 
flicted on  them,  he  most  indignantly  punishes."  The  peculiar  form, 
however,  in  which  this  thought  is  brought  out  by  Matthew,  and  more 
especially  by  Mark,  does  not  seem  to  suit  the  context.  We  do  not 
see  in  what  connexion  it  stands  with  the  strife  among  the  apostles. 
This  might  render  it  probable  that  there  are  inserted  here  portions 
of  discourses  originally  spoken  in  another  connexion.  (Comp.  on 
Matth.  v.  29,  30,  where  something  similar  occurs.)  But  at  Matth 
xviii.  10,  14,  we  again  find  marked  references  to  the  antecedent 
little  ones,  and  at  Mark  ix.  50,  also  the  clause  d^rjvevere  iv  a 


580  MATTHEW  XVIII.  6. 

be  at  peace  among  yourselves,  again  points  back  to  the  strife  among 
the  disciples,  from  which  the  discourse  took  its  rise.  We  must  then 
prove  that  these  words  respecting  the  oicavdaXi&iv  stand  connected 
with  the  entire  discourse.  For,  even  granting  that  they  had  origin- 
ally been  spoken  in  other  circumstances  by  the  Lord,  this  much  is 
clear,  that  both  evangelists  meant  here  to  place  them  in  a  fitting 
connexion.  It  only  remains,  then,  that  we  regard  the  sense  of  /u/tpof, 
little,  as  modified  in  such  a  way  that  the  expression  here  forms  the 
counterpart  of  jutyaf ,  great.  Usually  the  New  Testament  employs  the 
term  [uitpos,  little,  little  one,  to  denote  believers,  the  regenerate  in 
general  (see  more  fully  on  this  point  at  Matth.  x.  42),  but  again  we 
also  find  a  distinction  drawn  between  the  great  and  the  small  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  (see  at  Matth.  xi.  11,  and  v.  19).  Applying  this 
distinction  here,  the  connexion  of  the  passage  may  be  taken  in  this 
way.  The  strife  among  the  disciples  as  to  their  place  in  the  king- 
dom of  God  might  have  given  offence  to  the  other  believers,  so  that 
they  were  perplexed  as  to  whether  the  truth  dwelt  within  the  circle 
where  such  things  could  occur.  This  led  the  Lord  to  declare  his 
mind  as  to  the  guilt  of  those  who  gave  offence,  even  to  the  weakest 
among  the  believers.  The  seventh  verse,  in  Matth.  however,  seems 
to  be  in  opposition  to  this  view  of  the  connexion,  for  the  offences 
are  there  ascribed  to  the  world.  But  in  reference  to  this,  we  must 
observe,  that  the  disciples,  in  so  far  as  they  gave  offence  to  believers, 
did  themselves  belong  to  the  world,  and  thus  the  Saviour  here 
passes  over  from  the  particular  to  the  general,  just  as  at  Matth.  xvi. 
23,  he  traces  Peter's  declaration  at  once  to  the  origin  of  evil  from 
whose  influence  he  was  not  yet  wholly  free.  With  this,  also,  ver.  8, 
seq.,  well  agrees,  where  he  speaks  of  self-offence  (iavrov  oitavdaki&iv), 
man  being  thus  presented  as  in  a  conflict  between  the  new  and  the 
old  principles  of  his  nature. 

As  to  the  meaning  of  andvdahov,  the  old  form  of  the  word  oitav- 
ddhrjTpov  properly  denotes  a  trap  for  ensnaring  animals,  then  in 
general,  a  noose,  a  snare,  laying  wait  for.  In  the  New  Testament 
it  is  transferred  to  spiritual  things,  and  under  oicdvdakov  everything 
is  included  which  can  hinder  the  development  of  spiritual  life,  or 
deter  men  from  faith  in  the  Divine  =  Trpoanonna,  in  Hebrew  »£'»,  a 
cord,  a  noose,  or  Vi  cs*>  offence.  (On  this  account  also  in  the  New 
Testament,  irayig,  Orjpa,  stand  connected  with  oKavdakov,  see  Rom. 
xi.  9.)  The  verb  oitavdaMfriv  consequently  means  to  give  offence, 
to  prepare  spiritual  obstruction,  oitavdaM&oQai,  to  take  offence. 
There  is  a  peculiarity,  however,  in  the  meaning  of  onavdatd&iv  in 
ver.  8,  of  this  passage,  according  to  which  the  onavdaXifav  and  the 
aKavda^ofievog  appear  united  in  the  same  individual.  This  internal 
conflict  in  man  himself  is  to  be  explained,  as  has  been  already  said, 
from  regeneration,  through  which  the  new  man  is  brought  into  life 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  6-9.  581 

who  wrestles  and  struggles  with  the  old  man  for  dominion.  The 
greatness  of  the  guilt  involved  in  giving  spiritual  offence,  or  in 
deterring  the  little  ones  from  a  life  of  faith,  is  depicted  by  the 
Saviour  in  a  form  palpable  to  the  senses,  inasmuch  as  he  represents 
the  sin  of  these  delinquencies  as  greater  than  those  crimes  on  which 
the  heaviest  political  punishment  is  inflicted.  (The  ovufapei  avroi, 
it  ivcre  letter  for  him,  expresses  a  heavier,  namely,  a  spiritual  and 
eternal  punishment. — The  sinking  into  the  sea  was  not  practised 
among  the  Jews,  but  was  in  use  among  other  nations.  See  for 
example,  Sueton.,  August,  c.  68.  Instead  of  the  less- usual  expres- 
sion juuAof  6vm6g  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  Mark  has  /U'0of  /ivA^df. 
MvAof  =  pv^rj  denotes  properly  the  mitt  itself,  and  in  a  secondary 
sense  the  mill-stone.  The  word  ovog  is  commonly  used  of  the  lower 
mill-stone,  which  does  not  move.  The  adjective  form,  6viK6$,  is  not 
in  use  as  applied  to  it.  The  words  pvkog  bvinoq  therefore  cannot 
well  mean  the  lower  and  heavier  mill-stone.  We  do  better  to  adhere 
to  the  sense  of  set  in  motion  by  asses,  as  expressing  the  size  of  the 
stone.  The  ass  mill-stone  is  contrasted  with  the  stone  of  a  mill 
driven  by  the  hand  of  man.) 

Ver.  7. — This  thought  again  meets  us  at  Luke  xvii.  1,  where 
we  shall  more  closely  consider  it.  Here  it  is  only  incidental, 
and  unconnected  with  the  rest  of  the  discourse.  (Koojuof  the 
counterpart  of  /3a<r.  r.  Q.  See  in  regard  to  it  more  at  length  in  the 
exposition  of  John  i.  9.) 

Ver.  8,  9. — After  speaking  of  offence  given  to  others,  Jesus 
passes  on  to  that  inward  offence  which  he  who  is  born  again  may 
give  to  himself.  The  general  meaning  of  the  words  is  clear.  The 
cutting  off  hand  and  foot,  the  plucking  out  of  the  eye,  is  intended 
to  denote  the  denying  ourselves  of  what  is  dearest  and  most  indis- 
pensable to  the  outward  life,  when  through  sinful  influences 
transmitted  from  without,  it  endangers  the  spiritual  life.  But  here, 
as  at  Matth.  ver.  29,  30,  a  difficulty  is  raised  by  the  additional 
clause,  It  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  (sc.,  eternal)  lame, 
maimed,  one-eyed  (%o>Adv,  Kvkkuv,  ^ovo^QaX^ov^  .*  For,  I  cannot 
persuade  myself  to  regard  this  as  a  mere  embellishment,  which  has 
no  meaning  of  its  own.  The  sense  of  the  whole  comparison  rather 
seems  to  be  this.  The  cutting  off  of  hand  or  foot,  can,  as  is  self- 
evident,  be  only  taken  spiritually,  since  the  outward  act  were  mean- 
ing-loss (compare  on  Matth.  xix.  12),  unless  the  inward  root  of  sin 
were  destroyed.  Hand,  foot,  eye,  here  appear  to  be  used  by  the 
Saviour  to  denote  mental  powers  and  dispositions,  and  he  counsels 
their  restraint,  their  non-development,  if  their  culture  interferes 
with  that  of  the  higher  elements  of  spiritual  life.  The  unrestricted 

*  Compare  as  to  fjLQv6<fOa^p.og  Lobeck's  Phrynichus,  p.  136.    The  pure  Greek  form  is 


582  MATTHEW  XVIII.  8,  9. 

development  of  all  our  faculties,  the  inferior  as  well  as  the  more 
elevated,  is  the  highest  attainment,  yet  he  who  finds  by  experience 
that  he  cannot  cultivate  certain  faculties — the  artistic  for  example 
— without  injury  to  his  holiest  feelings,  must  renounce  their  cultiva- 
tion, and  first  of  all  preserve  by  pains-taking  fidelity,  the  central 
principle  of  his  soul,  the  life  imparted  by  Christ,  which  in  the  man- 
ifold distraction  of  his  powers  can  so  easily  be  lost.  Nor  let  the 
sacrifice  of  some  subordinate  principle,  be  matter  of  painful  regret.* 
True,  we  must  add,  that  this  loss  is  only  in  appearance,  for,  in  the 
development  of  man's  higher  life,  every  lower  principle  which  he  had 
sacrificed,  is  again  restored  with  increase  of  power.  But  in  the  first 
instance,  he  has  the  real  experience  of  such  a  sacrifice,  and  it  still 
remains  true  that  it  is  a  higher  and  better  thing  to  Jearn  to  cultivate 
even  the  lower  faculties  in  harmony  with  the  higher.  Where,  how- 
ever, that  cannot  be,  we  should  choose  the  safer  course.  Mark  gives 
finally,  a  very  lengthened  version  of  this  discourse,  without,  however, 
adding  anything  to  the  thought.  The  simple  rrvp  aluviov,  everlast- 
ing fire,  of  Matthew  is  in  Mark  paraphrased  by  yHf-vva,  rrvp  aafcorov 

OTTOV     6    OKU)X7)t;     a,VT&V    0V    TK^EVTO,     KOi     TO    TTVp    0V    <J$KVVVTai,  hell,  UH~ 

quenchdble  fire  where  their  ivorm,  etc.  The  words  are  taken  from 
Isaiah  Ixvi.  24,  whence  they  had  already  been  quoted  at  Sir.  vii.  19; 
Judith  xvi.  21.  They  depict  the  amo/leta,  perdition,  by  imagery 
taken  from  death  and  putrefaction,  inasmuch  as  life  is  contrasted 
with  eternal  death.  (See  as  to  Kpiaig  aluviog  the  remarks  on  Matth. 
xii.  32.)  The  expression  <r/cw/l7/£  —  nsV'm  denotes  properly  the  worm 
that  devours  the  dead  body  (Ps.  xxii.  7 ;  Sir.  x.  13) ;  here  standing 
in  parallelism  with  rrvp,  it  must  be  understood  as  inflicting  pain. 
The  seeming  tautology  in  the  passage  TO  irvp  aafoorov  onov  TO  rrvp  ov 
ofievvvTai  disappears  when  we  supply  avTtiv  to  the  rrvp  as  in  the  case 
of  the  antecedent  onuXrj!;,  which  stands  so  placed  also  in  Isaiah. 
For  in  that  case  the  first  expression  is  a  general  description  of  the 
place  of  punishment,  the  second  the  special  infliction  of  its  agonies 
on  these  guilty  ones. 

We  have  an  interesting  remark  at  the  conclusion  of  these  words 
in  Mark,  ver.  49,  50,  "  For  every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire,  and 
every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted  with  salt"  (rrdg  yap  rrvpl  dhiaOrjoeTai  KOI 
Ttaoa  Ovaia  a/It  rf/Ucrf^aertw).  This  thought  closes  very  appropriately  the 
foregoing  discourse,  for  it  concentrates  into  one  general  principle,  as 
it  were,  what  had  previously  been  set  forth.  The  salting  with  fire 

*  Thus  also  had  Origen  already  spoken  (Comra.  in  Matth.,  Tom.  xiii.  ed.  de  la  Rue, 
vol.  iii.  603).  Tholuck  remarks  (Comm.  on  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  p.  234),  in  opposition 
to  this  that  my  exposition  bears  a  modern  character,  inasmuch  as  the  distinction  of  the 
various  mental  faculties  belongs  to  modern  metaphysical  philosophy.  His  objection  ap- 
pears to  me  ill-founded,  for  men  have  always  perceived  the  distinction  between  different 
powers  of  mind.  What  people  ever  wholly  confounded  memory  with  reason — the  fancy 
with  the  will? 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  8,  9. 

neither  refers  simply  to  the  everlasting  fire,  nor  merely  to  the  exhor- 
tation to  self -denial,  but  includes  both,  so  that  the  rrdg,  every  one,  is 
to  be  understood  literally  of  the  whole  human  race.  The  sense  of  the 
expression  therefore  is  this,  because  of  the  general  sinfulness  of  the 
race,  every  individual  must  be  salted  with  fire,  either  on  the  one 
hand  by  his  entering  of  his  own  free  will  on  a  course  of  self-denial 
and  earnest  purification  from  his  iniquities,  or  on  the  other  hand,  by 
his  being  carried  against  his  will  away  to  the  place  of  punishment. 
The  fire  appears  here  first  as  the  cleansing,  purifying  element  (so  it 
often  does,  for  example,  Malachi  iii.  2;  Sir.  ii.  5),*  and  then,  as  that 
which  inflicts  pain.  But,  for  him  who  submits  in  earnest  to  the 
pain  which  is  necessarily  associated  with  the  overcoming  of  sin,  it 
works  beneficially.  (1  Pet.  iv.  1.)  The  term  dXi&adcu,  being  salted, 
is  well  chosen  to  express  the  effect  of  fire,  first,  because  of  the  suc- 
ceeding quotation,  in  which  salt  is  spoken  of,  and  next,  because  it 
harmonizes  perfectly  with  the  description  of  fire,  the  operation  of 
salt  being  closely  allied  to  that  of  fire.  From  hence  in  the  pro- 
found and  appropriate  symbolism  of  Scripture,  salt  derives  its 
peculiar  meaning,  especially  as  applied  to  sacrifices.  According  to 
Lev.  ii.  13,  all  sacrifices  must  be  seasoned  with  salt.  This  passage 
is  here  referred  to,  so  that  we  might  supply  the  words  &$  -yKyparcrai, 
as  it  is  written.  The  Old  Testament  practice,  therefore,  of 
seasoning  sacrifices  with  salt,  is  here  regarded  by  our  Lord  in 
its  deeper  meaning.  As  every  sacrifice  is,  on  the  part  of  him 
who  offers  it,  a  type  of  his  inwardly  devoting  himself  with  all 
that  he  is  and  has  to  the  eternal  source  of  his  being,  so  the 
salt  was  intended  to  shew  that  such  a  sacrifice  could  never  be 
well-pleasing  to  God  without  the  pain  of  self-denial,  and  the 
quickening  influence  of  the  Fire-Spirit  from  on  high.  The  fire- 
baptism  (Matth.  iii.  11)  is  just  this  act  of  purification  in  the  saints 
through  the  salt  of  self-denial,  and  even  the  Son  of  God  himself 
submitted  to  it,  though  he  was  sinless,  in  order  that  he  might  in 
the  fire  of  suffering,  perfect  and  glorify  the  human  nature  which  he 
had  assumed.  We  are  then  so  to  explain  the  grammatical  connex- 
ion of  the  clauses  as  not  to  understand  by  the  sacrifice  being  salted 
with  fire  another  and  a  different  thing  from  the  person's  being  salted 
with  salt :  the  one  clause  contains  the  sensible  image  and  type  of 
the  spiritual  process  indicated  by  the  other.  It  is  not,  necessary, 
however,  on  this  account  to  give  to  the  nai  the  meaning  of  sicuti, 
quemadmodum ;  we  have  only  to  supply  did  rovro,  so  that  the 
sense  should  be,  "  and  for  this  reason  (as  it  stands  written)  must 
every  sacrifice  be  salted  with  salt."  We  have,  therefore,  in  this  pas- 
sage, an  authoritative  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  a  sacrifice,  and 

*  So  I  think,  in  the  baptism  of  fire,  Matth.  Hi. — [K. 


584  MATTHEW  XVIII.  8,  9. 

of  the  ceremony  of  presenting  them  to  the  Lord  sprinkled  with  salt.* 
Among  the  manifold  other  explanations  of  this  passage,  we  are 
specially  bound  to  reject  as  contrary  to  the  use  of  the  language,  that 
which  takes  akifyaQai  =  n^as  in  the  sense  of  being  annihilated  refer- 
ring to  Is.  li.  6.  For  in  the  latter  passage  the  word  ft ^  has  a  mean- 
ing wholly  unconnected  with  the  term  nV^  salt.  (Compare  Gesen. 
in  Lex.  sub.  voc.) — It  is  still  further  difficult  to  connect  ver.  50  with 
the  preceding  context.  For  the  discourse  makes  a  transition  to  the 
nature  of  salt  in  general,  and  brings  forward  the  circumstance  that 
if  it  have  lost  its  strength  there  is  no  means  by  which  it  may  be 
regained.  The  same  thought  occurred  at  Matth.  v.  13  ;  Luke  xiv. 
34  ;  but  in  such  a  connexion  that  the  disciples  are  themselves  called 
the  salt  of  the  earth,  in  so  far,  namely,  as  they  are  the  seasoning, 
quickening  element  in  humanity.  Here  the  import  of  the  thoughts 
is  somewhat  modified,  but  not  essentially  changed.  For,  in  the 
disciples  themselves,  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  natural  life 
by  which  they  were  allied  to  the  world  (Compare  Matth.  xviii.  17), 
and  the  higher  and  heavenly  principle  which  animated  them.  It  is 
here  enjoined  on  them  to  preserve  this  last,  and  so  gradually  to  per- 
vade with  salt  from  heaven  all  their  faculties  and  dispositions  of 
mind.  In  the  passage,  Matth.  v.  13,  they  are  called  the  salt  of  the 
earth  in  so  far  as  they,  compared  with  the  great  mass  of  men,  were 
prevailingly  filled  from  above  with  the  fiery  influence.  In  both 
passages,  however,  here  as  well  as  at  Matth.  v.  13,  man's  own  faith- 
fulness is  represented  as  called  for  to  guard  the  salt  of  the  Spirit. 
To  catt  forth  that  higher  life,  is  what  man  cannot  do,  it  is  a  pure 
gift  of  grace,  but  he  can  stifle,  it,  or  he  can  protect  it  as  a  mother 
can,  to  a  certain  extent,  secure  the  child  that  is  under  her  heart  from 
harm  and  mischance,  though  she  has  not  the  power  of  calling  it  into 
existence.  In  this  exhortation,  therefore,  e^ere  KV  tavrolg  aXag,  have 
salt  in  yourselves,  there  lies  an  admonition  to  earnestness  in  self- 
denial  and  perseverance,  as  the  means  by  which  the  gift  bestowed 
may  be  preserved.  And  this  admonition  is  sharpened  by  recalling 
to  their  minds  the  impossibility  of  seasoning  salt  which  has  lost  its 
powers  (KV  rivi  avrb  dprvaere).  The  closing  words  nai  elprjvEvere  Iv 
dAAr/Aotf,  and  be  at  peace  with  one  another,  point  back  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  discourse  at  Mark  ix.  33.  Perhaps  the  expres- 
sion have  salt,  is  intended  to  form  a  contrast  to  the  be  at  peace. 
The  former  seems  to  describe  a  sharp  and  caustic,  the  latter 
a  gentle  mode  of  action  ;  both  are  to  be  united  in  the  regener- 

*  Hamann  has  already  said  in  allusion  to  this  passage,  "  the  anxiety  which  prevails  in 
the  world  is  perhaps  the  only  proof  of  our  heterogeneous  constitution.  For  were  nothing 
wanting  to  us  we  should  act  as  the  heathen,  and  the  transcendental  philosophers  who 
know  nothing  of  God,  and  are  enamoured  of  lovely  nature.  This  impertinent  disquietude, 
this  holy  hypochondria,  is  the  fire  by  which  wo  are  salted  sacrifices.  (Works,  Part  vi.,  p. 
194.) 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  8-10.  585 

ate  ;  in  regard  to  the  ungodliness  that  is  in  the  world  he  must  re- 
prove and  rebuke,  and  in  so  far  he  must,  like  Christ  himself  (Matth. 
x.  34),  bring  in  strife,  but  in  regard  to  all  that  is  congenial  and 
kindred  in  the  children  of  God,  gentleness  must  prevail.  As  there- 
fore salt  does  not  season  salt,  but  only  that  which  is  unsalted,  so  the 
living  energy  of  the  children  of  God  should,  not  be  expended  in  con- 
tests among  themselves,  but  devoted  to  the  awakening  of  life  in  the 
world.  The  closeness  with  which  the  last  verses  in  Mark  connect 
themselves  both  with  the  preceding  context  and  with  the  commence- 
ment of  the  whole  discourse,  makes  it  to  my  mind  improbable  that 
they  originally  stood  in  any  other  connexion,  and  here,  therefore,  we 
have  an  instance  in  which  Mark  also  contributes  to  the  train  of 
thought  something  peculiarly  his  own. 

Ver.  10. — While  hitherto  Matthew  has  had  a  parallel  account  in 
Mark,  he  now  pursues  the  discourse  alone  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
The  connexion  of  thought  between  the  first  clause  and  the  preced- 
ing context  is  simple,  inasmuch  as  the  Karafyyovelv,  despise,  ver.  10, 
refers  back  to  the  oicavdaM&iv,  offend,  of  ver.  6.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  remark,  that  in  this  case  also  the  little  ones  are  the  regenerate, 
and  consequently  anything  like  a  special  connexion  between  angels 
and  children,  we  are  unable  here  to  discover.  A  peculiar  argument 
is  here  employed  by  our  Lord  to  enforce  the  exhortation  against 
despising  the  little  ones.  He  brings  forward  their  preciousness  in 
the  view  of  his  Father  in  heaven  (who  is  also  their  Father,  for  be- 
lievers bear  within  them  the  life  of  Christ,  see  ver.  5)  in  the  remark 
which  he  makes,  "  their  angels  continually  see  God's  face."  First, 
then,  the  words  jSAerretv  rb  -KpoouTrov  rov  TKITQOC;,  beholding  the 
face,  etc.,  are  by  no  means  to  be  reduced  to  a  mere  oriental  form 
of  speech  :  they  rather  describe  simply  the  reality  of  the  relation. 
The  degree  of  their  nearness  to  God  marks  the  degree  of  holi- 
ness in  their  nature,  and  the  meaning  would  seem  to  be,  that 
the  regenerate  (even  the  most  insignificant  members  of  the  kingdom 
of  God),  as  being  representatives  of  the  highest  holiness  on  earth,  are 
also  in  the  heavenly  world  (in  which  all  the  phenomena  of  earth 
have  their  root)  represented  by  the  holiest  beings.  Any  analogies 
to  this  exhibited  in  'political  arrangements,  are  merely  a  more  or  less 
intentional  imitation  of  the  original  relation.  (Compare  1  Kings 
x.  8  ;  Esther  i.  14 ;  Jerem.  lii.  25.)  The  idea  of  angels  who  take 
their  stand  in  immediate  proximity  to  the  Father  often  meets  us 
amidst  the  teachings  of  Scripture  (Dan.  vii.  10 ;  Rev.  i.  4  ;  iv.  4),  but 
in  no  passage  elsewhere  do  we  find  that  these  angels  particularly  are 
placed  in  such  a  connection  with  believers  as  is  here  indicated  by 
the  words  their  angels.  Although,  however,  in  a  certain  sense  this 
passage  stands  alone,  and  is  also  not  strictly  of  a  didactic  character, 
yet  we  must  not  regard  it  as  uttered  in  any  accommodation  to  Jew- 


586  MATTHEW  XVIII.  10-17. 

ish  myths.  There  was  not  here  the  slightest  occasion  for  suggesting 
the  idea  unless  it  possessed  an  internal  truth.  That  every  individual 
had  his  angel,  as  inferred  from  the  passage  by  the  fathers  of  the 
church  (Compare  Schmidt  de  Angelis  tutelaribus*  in  Illgen's  Denk- 
schrift,  Leipzig  1817),  it  does  not  expressly  state.  In  Daniel, 
angels  are  spoken  of  as  the  representatives  of  whole  nations  (x.  20  ; 
xii.  1),  and  we  may  thus  conceive  a  single  angel  as  representing 
several  persons.  Yet  on  the  other  hand,  Acts  xii.  15  indicates  a 
representation  of  individuals.  Yet  the  passage  bears  necessarily 
a  degree  of  obscurity,  as  it  cannot  be  illustrated  by  a  comparison 
with  others.  Often,  finally,  is  the  angelic  world  viewed  in  Scrip- 
ture as  standing  connected  with  believers  (Ps.  xxxiv.  8  ;  Ps.  xci.  11  ; 
Heb.  i.  14),  since  the  development  of  the  church  appears  as  the 
central  point  of  the  whole  (1  Peter  i.  12). 

Ver.  11-14. — In  some  MSS.  (B.  L.  and  others)  verse  11  is  want- 
ing ;  it  might  have  been  taken  from  Luke  xix.  10,  where  he  has 
also  the  following  verses  in  connection  with  kindred  topics.  But 
first  it  is  improbable  that  this  verse  from  a  passage  of  Luke's  gospel, 
and  that  assuredly  not  parallel,  should  have  been  thrust  in  here  ; 
and  in  the  next  place,  it  agrees  too  closely  with  Matthew's  context 
to  prevent  our  believing  this  much,  at  least,  that  Matthew  himself 
inserted  it  in  this  passage,  although  we  may  doubt  whether  it  was 
originally  uttered  in  this  precise  connexion.  For  the  Son  of  Man 
stands  beside  the  angels  as  one  exalted  above  them,  and  the  fact 
that  the  little  ones  are  the  object  of  the  mission  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
is  a  new  proof  of  their  preciousness  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  term 
aTro/lwAdf,  lost,  plainly  points  to  the  following  parable  of  the  lost 
sheep,  whose  fuller  exposition  will  find  a  place  at  Luke  chap.  xv. 
Here  I  only  observe  with  reference  to  its  connexion  with  the  entire 
discourse,  that  the  contrast  between  the  strayed  sheep  and  the 
ninety-nine  which  did  not  stray,  would  stand  wholly  isolated,  unless, 
as  was  remarked  above,  we  adhere  to  the  distinction  between  the 
funpog,  little,  and  the  pfyas,  great,  which  runs  through  the  discourse. 
The  parable  thus  acquires  in  this  passage  a  modified  sense  foreign  to 
it  in  Luke,  where  it  rather  represents  the  just  and  the  unjust  in 
their  relation  to  Divine  grace. 

Ver.  15-17.— It  was  mentioned  in  the  general  remarks  on 
this  chapter,  that  the  following  thoughts  on  forgiveness  may  also 
belong  to  the  discourse  as  integral  parts  of  it,  if  we  assume  that  the 
strife  among  the  disciples  had  led  to  offences,  that  Peter  had  been 
the  person  offended,  and  on  this  very  account,  therefore,  the  one  ex- 
horted to  forgiveness.  But  although  the  following  parable  (ver.  22- 
35),  accords  well  with  this  assumption,  yet  to  my  mind  it  is  ren- 

*  Meyer  gives  an  extract  from  this  treatise  in  the  Blatt.  f.  hoh.  Wahrheit,  Th.  i.  S 
183,  seq. 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  15-17. 

dered  improbable  by  the  connexion  sustained  by  ver.  18,  19,  to  the 
rest  of  the  discourse.  Had  the  disciples  been  themselves  both 
the  offenders  and  the  offended,  these  verses  would  hardly  have 
formed  part  of  the  exhortation,  for  they  are  better  fitted  to  lift  up 
the  disciples  than  to  humble  them.  I  can  more  easily  suppose  that 
Matthew,  as  his  manner  is,  has  conjoined  kindred  elements  with  the 
thoughts  that  form  the  basis  of  the  discourse.  In  this  instance  he 
wished  to  depict  the  character  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  in 
their  humility  and  meekness.  After  having,  in  what  goes  before, 
warned  believers  against  offending  weaker  brethren,  the  discourse 
brings  to  view  the  opposite  point  of  the  contrast,  and  describes  how 
a  believer  should  conduct  himself  if  injury  be  inflicted  upon  him  (£av 
6  d(5eA06f  oov  dpapTTjay  dg  oe),  and  specially  if  it  be  done  by  a  fellow 
believer  (ddetyog  is  here  a  brother  Christian,  a  member  of  the  king- 
dom of  God).  This  instruction,  however,  is  conceived  in  terms  so 
general,  that  it  at  once  stands  forth  as  a  precept  for  the  whole 
church,  and  it  rests  on  the  spiritual  character  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  and  the  everlasting  presence  of  Christ  in  his  church.  This 
makes  it  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  the  words  were 
occasioned  by  a  strife  among  the  diciples  themselves,  otherwise  ver. 
18  must  be  held  as  meaning  "if  one  of  you  exclude  another  from 
the  communion  of  God's  kingdom,  that  exclusion  is  held  as  effectual 
in  the  sight  of  God,"  an  idea  obviously  untenable.  The  disciples 
were  not  to  exclude  one  another  ;  but  they  are  here  viewed  as  the 
real  and  the  pure  germ  of  the  church,  which  no  power  of  evil  should 
overcome  ;  but  if  room  was  left  for  their  being  sinned  against  by 
their  brethren  less  enlightened  than  themselves  by  Christian  prin- 
ciple, they  must  in  that  case  act  on  the  rule  here  laid  down.  Thus 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  (ver.  23),  by  no  means  appears  in  this  pass- 
age as  a  communion  absolutely  perfect  (compare  on  Matth.  xiii.  47), 
but  as  one  in  which  good  exerts  a  predominating  influence,  repress- 
ing, consequently,  and  restraining  evil ;  so  that  this  passage  once 
more  plainly  shews  that  the  Saviour  intended  to  found  an  external 
church,  in  which,  as  a  kernel  in  its  shell,  the  ideal  kingdom  of  God 
should  be  developed.  The  disciples  appear  as  representatives  of  this 
kernel  of  God's  kingdom  ;  to  them  is  entrusted  the  guiding  and 
ruling  of  this  community  ;  they  are  the  salt,  and  have  to  care  for  the 
preservation  of  the  whole  body  in  the  strength  of  him  who  is  unceas- 
ingly amongst  them.  If  they  (through  unfaithfulness)  were  to 
lose  their  power,  the  kingdom  of  God  would  fall  to  pieces  ;  the  sin 
even  of  others  should  be  repressed  by  them.  It  must,  however, 
here  again  be  observed,  that  these  injunctions  of  the  Saviour  do  not 
apply  to  the  form  of  the  outward  church  at  all  times  (Compare  as 
to  this  on  Matth.  v.  39,  seq.),  but  are  valid  only  in  reference  to  true 


588  MATTHEW  XVIII.  15-17. 

believers.*  For,  the  external  church  has  relapsed,  since  the  fourth 
century,  into  the  Old  Testament  form,  and  to  such  as  are  not  eman- 
cipated from  the  law,  such  precepts  as  the  ahove  have  no  meaning ; 
against  the  injuries  of  the  world  a  Christian  has  the  protection  of 
the  magistrates,  and  he  errs  if  he  believes  that  owing  to  this  ordi- 
nance of  Jesus  he  may  not  call  in  their  aid.f  This  progressive 
series  of  admonitions,  first  apart,  then  before  certain  witnesses,  and 
finally  in  presence  of  the  church,  presupposes  a  state  of  mind  not 
hardened  against  the  power  of  the  truth,  even  where  no  threat  is 
used  to  enforce  it.  The  universal  carrying  out  of  it  would  as  com- 
pletely disorganise  civil  society,  as  if  each  man  were  to  give  his  coat 
to  any  one  who  had  demanded  of,  him  his  cloak.  For  the  unawak- 
ened,  unconverted  man  it  is  wisdom  to  act  on  God's  precept,  "  Eye 
for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth"  (Matthew  v.  22).  Fritzche's  remark  (on 
the  passage)  is  most  correct,  that  it  is  better  to  place  the  interpunc- 
tuation  after  avrov  than  after  povov.  [?]  The  phrase  \it-a^v  aov  nal 
avrov  is  perfectly  sufficient  by  itself,  and  the  povov  idv  aov  duovaq  is 
fittingly  conjoined  into  a  distinct  clause,  since  the  idea  of  unity 
stands  here  in  contrast  to  the  subsequent  plurality.  [Such  a  posi- 
tion of  povov  before  edv  is  not  in  accordance  with  Matthew's  style.] 
The  leading  principle  of  the  whole  line  of  conduct  prescribed  is 
mildness,  long-suffering,  and  an  endeavour  to  give  ascendancy  to 
Divine  influences  in  the  mind  of  a  brother.  The  conversation, 
therefore,  does  not  deal  merely  with  the  isolated  fact  of  the  offence 
given,  but  refers  to  the  whole  state  of  the  offender's  soul  from  which 
that  act  proceeded.  The  point  it  concerned  them  to  aim  at,  was  to 
change  this  frame  of  mind,  and  to  this  reference  is  made  by  the 
term  K^oSaivav  scil.  elg  farjv  aluviov,  gaining,  viz.,  to  eternal  life. 
Every  sin,  especially  against  a  brother,  is  submission  to  the  domin- 
ion of  the  sinful  principle  (1  John  iii.  8),  and  this  leads  to  perdition. 
When,  therefore,  any  one,  by  the  gentle  power  of  love,  wins  a 
brother  for  the  kingdom  of  love,  he  gains  =  saves  him,  of  course  by 
the  power  of  Christ  working  in  him.  Love,  once  repulsed,  renews 
its  assault :  the  admonition  is  made  more  impressive  and  solemn  by 
the  presence  of  others.  The  Saviour  here  refers  to  Deut.  xix.  15. 
(The  pTjfta  corresponds  here  to  the  Hebrew  ns^  in  the  sense  of  causa, 
a  cause  in  law;  oro^ia  is  put  for  oral  testimony,  in  which  the  depon- 
ent is  himself  produced  in  evidence.)  He  here  applies  this  Mosaic 
ordinance  in  an  elevated  form,  suited  to  more  elevated  relations. 

*  Better ;  these  precepts  refer  not  to  Christianity  and  Christian  states,  but  only  to 
Christian  church  organization.  But  to  the  latter  it  is  by  no  means  essential  that  it  con- 
sist exclusively  of  regenerated  persons,  but  only  that  it  have  an  organized  system  of  dis- 
cipline for  offences. — [E. 

f  In  this  way  must  1  Cor.  vi.  1  be  understood,  in  the  exposition  of  which  further 
details  will  be  given. 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  15-20.  589 

For  it  is  by  no  means  evidence  against  an  erring  brother  that  in  the 
first  instance  is  here  spoken  of,  but  simply  an  impressive  mode  of 
working  on  his  mind.  If  this  produced  no  impression  on  him,  then 
the  presence  of  witnesses  certainly  took  the  form,  of  evidence  against 
him,  inasmuch  as  his  case  was  laid  before  the  whole  church.  This 
appears  as  the  final  attempt  to  call  forth  the  influence  of  a  Chris- 
tian spirit  in  the  brother  who  had  erred  and  who  clung  to  his  error. 
The  iKickrjata  here,  like  Vn;?,  is  the  assemblage  of  all  the  believers  in 
one  place,  to  which  assembly  the  separate  individual  belongs  as  a 
member.  If  he  also  refuse  to  follow  this  most  emphatic  rebuke, 
then  the  only  means  of  help,4 as  well  as  the  sole  punishment,  is  to 
exclude  him  from  the  community.  Where  spiritual  life  has  left  a 
soul,  the  withdrawal  of  fellowship  with  kindred  minds  is  often  the 
surest  means  of  rousing  its  slumbering  aspirations.  (The  expres- 
sions iOvutog  and  re^vrjg  denote  that  sphere  of  life  generally,  which 
lies  without  the  Christian  circle.) 

Ver.  18. — As  to  the  thought  contained  in  this  verse,  compare  on 
ver.  16,  17.  Here  the  only  question  is,  how  the  Evangelist's  words 
are  to  be  understood,  as  connected  with  the  context.  Plainly,  the 
ye  must  be  held  parallel  with  the  church  of  the  foregoing  verse,  so 
that  the  sure  and  binding  nature  of  the  church's  decision  is  here 
affirmed.  "  What  in  such  a  case  the  church  ordains,  is  no  mere 
human  decision,  but  since  in  the  church  divinity  itself  appears 
manifested  on  earth,  its  decisions  also  are  of  Divine  validity." 

Ver.  19,  20. — The  connexion  of  the  following  verses  with  the 
preceding  is  simply  this  :  the  spiritual  power  of  the  church  to  bind 
and  to  loose  depends  on  the  efficient  influence  in  it  of  the  heavenly 
Father ;  that  influence,  however,  is  independent  of  the  extent  of 
the  congregation,  or  of  locality  (we  might  add,  according  to  Matth. 
xxviii.  20,  of  time);  God  in  Christ  is  universally  present  in  his 
church.  (The  -nakiv  a\i-f\v  gives  no  incongruous  meaning ;  the 
authority  of  manuscripts  favours  the  omission  of  the  dp/v.)  The 
church  is  here  contemplated  in  its  narrowest  possible  limit  (dvo  ij 
Tpsi<f)  ;  an  individual  cannot  form  a  church,  but  any  plurality  of 
persons  who  bear  within  them  the  same  principle  of  spiritual  life, 
constitutes  a  KOLVWIO,  rov  irvevnaro^  (1  John  i.  3),  and  consequently 
a  church.  From  the  Koivuvia,  fettoivship,  therefore,  may  proceed  a 
avfxfrwvia  (an  harmonious  agreement  of  will  for  some  special  end), 
and  this  the  Father  hears.  To  the  expression  "  on  earth"  corre- 
sponds the  "  Father  in  heaven,"  so  that  the  church  appears  united 
by  the  Spirit  to  the  Father,  who  carries  into  effect  its  wishes.  The 
general  expression,  Kepi  -rravrbg  Trpdyfiaros,  concerning  every  thing,  is 
usually  considered  as  restricted  to  whatever  is  fitted  to  advance  the 
welfare  of  the  church,  or  that  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  Christian 
life.  This  is  certainly  so  far  correct,  that  things  spiritual  form  the 


590  MATTHEW  XVIII.  19,  20. 

sole  object  of  a  believer's  labours,  an  object  in  which  for  him  every- 
thing else  terminates,  in  so  far  as  it  is  in  itself  good.  But  just 
because  everything  does  so  terminate,  must  the  "  everything"  be 
taken  in  a  literal  sense,  inasmuch  as  everything,  in  so  far  as  it  stands 
connected  with  the  wants  of  the  church,  may  form  the  object  of  a 
believer's  prayers.  The  possibility  of  abusing  this  command,  or 
rather,  this  high  permission,  given  by  the  Saviour  to  his  own  people, 
is  excluded  by  the  fact,  that  it  is  only  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  in 
Christ  Jesus  himself  who  creates  and  calls  forth  the  spiritual  fellow- 
ship, the  agreement  thence  arising  in  the  special  case,  and  the 
prayer  itself.  When,  then,  all  this  does  not  really  exist,  or  is  set 
forth  in  mere  deceptive  show,  the  words  of  the  Lord  find  no  appli- 
cation ;  but  wherever  it  in  reality  is  found,  there  his  words  are 
eternally  true.  It  is  wholly  independent  of  time  and  place  ;  where- 
soever (ov  scil.  TOTTOV),  the  believers  may  be  assembled  together  if 
they  meet  in  the  name  of  Jesus  (and  pray  in  his  name),  there  the 
Lord  is  in  the  midst  of  them.*  (And,  according  to  Matth.  xxviii. 
20,  there  is  no  restriction  of  time;  eyw  jj^d'  vn&v  elfu  7rdaagtrdg  rj^epa^.) 
What  defines  the  thought  in  these  words  is  the  expression  el$  TO 
ipbv  dvojia,  in  my  name.  (The  d$  here  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 
iv.  In  the  formula  elg  ovo^a,  the  name  is,  as  it  were,  the  point  of 
union,  so  that  it  corresponds  to  the  German  auf  seinem  Namen, 
upon  his  name.  In  the  formula  ev  dvopan,  the  name  is  the  uniting 
power  by  means  of  which  the  conjunction  is  conceived  of  as  effected 
and  maintained.  Compare  on  Matth.  xxviii.  19.)  "Ovopa,  however, 
=  taw,  name  (compare  on  Luke  i.  35),  denotes  the  person,  the  essen- 
tial being,  not  indeed  as  incapable  of  being  known,  or  as  actually 
unknown,  but  as  manifested.  The  assembling,  then,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  and  the  praying  in  his  name,  presuppose  the  life  of  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  in  those  so  meeting  together.  It  is  no  isolated  act 
which  every  one  in  all  circumstances  is  able,  by  the  self-determining 
power  of  his  own  mind,  to  do  ;  it  requires  rather  as  a  necessary  con- 
dition, that  man  should  be  under  the  power  of  living  Christian 
principle.  But,  as  even  the  believer  has  hours  of  spiritual  darkness, 
he  may,  from  negligence  and  want  of  watchfulness,  be  present  in 
the  assemblies  of  believers,  not  in  the  name  of  Jesus  ;  this,  there- 
fore, makes  a  watchful,  self-conscious  state  of  faith  necessary  ;  for 
the  object  to  be  aimed  at  in  our  advancement  as  Christians,  is,  that 
we  never  be  without  prayer  (Luke  xviii.  1,  seq.),  never  without  the 
name  of  Jesus,  either  when  alone,  or  in  the  company  of  others. 

*  Interesting  allusions  to  this  truth,  that  the  Divine  is  present  in  the  human  assem- 
blies of  those  who  seek  it,  are  to  be  found  among  the  Rabbins.  Thus,  in  the  Treatise 
Pirke  Aboth,  iii.  2,  it  is  said,  duo  si  assident  mensas  et  colloquia  habent  de  legends 
(the  symbol  of  God  as  acting,  of  the  Son,  compare  on  John  i.  1),  quiescit  super  eos  secun- 
dum  Mai.  iii.  16. 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  19-23.  591 

(Compare  further  as  to  prayer  in  the  name  of  Jesus  on  John  xiv.  13, 
14  ;  xvi.  24.)  If,  moreover,  the  Father  is  spoken  of  at  ver.  19,  and 
the  Son  is  at  ver.  20  represented  as  he  who  is  present  in  the  assem- 
bly (and  consequently,  as  he  who  acts  and  who  fulfils  prayer),  this 
is  explained  simply  by  the  relation  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  For, 
in  so  far  as  the  Father  manifests  himself  only  in  the  Son,  and  the 
Son  performs  only  what  the  Father  prompts  (John  viii.  28),  the 
operation  of  Father  and  Son  is  one  and  the  same  agency  of  the 
living  God.  To  assemble  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  to  pray 
in  him,  apart  from  the  Son,  is  an  impossibility,  it  is  merely  to  pray 
in  one's  own  name,  which  is  no  prayer  ;  for,  whosoever  denieth  the 
Son,  hath  not  the  Father.  These  last  verses,  finally,  have  again  the 
elevated  tone  of  John,  and  seem  to  have  been  spoken  in  moments 
of  holiest  exultation.  The  parable  which  follows,  at  once  sinks 
again  into  a  lower  region,  doubtless,  however,  for  this  reason,  be- 
cause Peter's  question  proved  that  he  (and  with  him,  certainly  the 
other  disciples  also),  was  not  yet  prepared  for  the  full  understand- 
ing of  the  foregoing  thought. 

Yer.  21,  22. — If  Peter  in  what  follows  speaks  of  forgiveness, 
there  had  yet  been  no  express  mention  made  of  that  subject  by 
Jesus  in  the  preceding  discourse,  but  the  whole  precepts  (ver.  15, 
seq.)  as  to  the  treatment  of  erring  brethren,  had  proceeded  neces- 
sarily on  the  supposition  of  forgiveness.  The  man  who,  in  his  own 
heart,  gives  way  to  anger,  will  continue  to  cherish  a  sense  of  the 
individual  offence  ;  but  the  man  who  forgives  will  strive  as  a  peace- 
maker (Matth.  v.  9),  to  remove  the  ground  of  the  sin  from  the  heart 
of  his  brother.  The  imperfect  moral  culture  of  Peter,  however,  did 
not  admit  of  his  understanding  even  the  fundamental  idea  of  for- 
giveness. Mistaking  the  nature  of  pure  love,  which  never  can  do 
otherwise  than  love,  he  conceives  of  some  limit  to  forgiveness,  being 
apprehensive,  as  is  usual  with  natural  men,  that  boundless  forgive- 
ness must  be  a  thing  impossible.  (The  Kn-aKig,  seven  limes,  as  also 
the  following  t'/Sdo^/eovra/ctf  en-d,  seventy  times  seven,  contains 
merely  the  idea  of  the  limited  and  the  unlimited,  expressed,  accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  practice,  by  the  number  seven.  Compare  Gen. 
xxxiii.  3  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  43.) 

Ver.  23. — The  Saviour,  having  perceived  from  Peter's  question 
how  far  his  discernment  was  here  at  fault,  proceeds  to  explain  to 
him  in  a  parable  the  grounds  on  which  a  member  of  God's  kingdom 
must  ever  stand  ready  to  grant  forgiveness  ;  as,  only  through  for- 
giveness extended  towards  himself  could  he  have  obtained  entrance 
into  that  kingdom.  To  every  individual,  even  to  such  as  took  their 
stand  on  the  footing  of  the  law,  this  must  have  formed  a  decisive 
motive  to  forgiveness.  It  was  only  the  law  of  recompense  to  which 
expression  was  thus  given.  While,  therefore,  the  inquiry  of  Peter 


592  MATTHEW  XVIII.  23-30. 

seemed  to  presuppose  the  right  to  act  at  one's  own  discretion  in 
bestowing  forgiveness  or  withholding  it,  the  Saviour  explains  that 
nothing  of  this  land  existed.  He  who  was  himself  in  debt  for  his 
all  could  advance  a  claim  for  nothing.  (As  to  the  formula  w^otwfl^ 
tf  Qaoikeia  r&v  ovpav&v  dvQpunc,)  (compare  Matth.  xiii.  24. — Aoyov 
avvaipuv,  rationem  conferre,  to  take  account.  The  dovkoi  are,  as  the 
summing  up#  shews,  the  servants  with  whom  the  disciples  are  here 
compared). 

Ver.  24-26.— The  sum  of  10,000  talents  is  very  great.  If  it 
were  the  Hebrew  talent  (133  =  3000  shekels,  see  Exodus  xxxviii 
25,  26),  it  would  amount  to  fifteen  millions  of  dollars.*  The  mag- 
nitude of  the  sum,  however,  accords  well,  on  the  one  hand,  with  the 
financial  operations  of  a  king;  and  on  the  other  hand  with  the 
idea  involved  in  the  parable,  namely,  that  the  sinner's  debt  to 
God  is  too  great  for  him  to  discharge.  According  to  ancient  custom, 
the  family  of  the  debtor  was  considered  as  belonging  to  the  creditor. 
In  the  Old  Testament,  however,  this  custom  is  mitigated  by  the 
wise  institution  of  the  jubilee  year,  in  which  the  debtor  with  his 
family  must  be  set  free.  (Comp.  Levit.  xxv.  39,  seq.)  The  wish 
of  the  debtor  to  see  the  payment  postponed  (jiaicpoOvfielv,  in  con- 
struction with  im,  as  well  as  with  elg,  means  in  the  New  Testament 
to  exercise  forbearance,  to  give 'a  respite),  and  his  hope  of  discharg- 
ing the  debt,  are  merely  an  expression  of  anxiety  and  care,  but  the 
thing  is  to  be  viewed  as  in  itself  impossible,  and  for  this  reason,  the 
king  compassionately  forgives  him  the  debt. 

Ver.  27-30. — The  severity  of  the  debtor  towards  his  own  sub- 
ordinates contrasts  most  strikingly  with  the  mildness  of  the  king. 
(As  to  o7rXayx,vi&a6ai  see  on  Luke  i.  78. — The  verb  dTroXveiv,  as 
denoting  deliverance  from  personal  confinement  and  slavery  is 
distinguished  from  the  remission  of  the  debt. — Adveiov,  borrowed 
money,  occurs  only  in  this  place.)  The  ovvdovA.og,felloio-servant,  is 
not  to  be  conceived  of  as  standing  on  the  same  footing  with  the 
first ;  the  intention  merely  is  to  bring  out  the  equally  dependent 
relation  of  both  to  the  king,  in  order  to  mark  more  prominently  the 
severity  of  the  debtor.  On  the  same  ground  also,  so  small  a  sum 
(100  denarii  =  12  dollars)  is  mentioned. 

Thus,  then,  in  that  idea  which  the  parable  is  intended  to  exhibit, 
this  point  stands  prominently  forth,  that  all  indebtedness  of  man  to 
man  (avvdovho^ ),  is  inconsiderable  in  comparison  with  his  indebtedness 
to  God ;  he  can  never  therefore  enforce  it  against  man,  while  con- 
scious of  his  heavier  liabilities  to  God.  [The  debt  of  the  fellow-servant 
is  thus,  as  it  were,  transferred  to  God.  The  servant  was  infinitely 
more  indebted  to  God,  and  yet  all  was  forgiven  him.  He  is  there- 
fore now  (in  another  sense)  accountable  to  God  himself  and  that 

*  Taking  the  dollar  at  75  cents,  this  would  amount  to  11,500,000  dollars. — [EL 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  27-35.  593 

for  all.  Also  all  demands  which  he  had  against  others,  it  is  not 
now  for  him  but  for  God  to  enforce  against  them,  the  God  to  whom 
it  is  not  too  much  to  remit  10,000  talents  !]  This  hard-hearted 
servant,  whose  feelings  the  graciousness  of  the  king  failed  to  soften, 
permits  himself  to  inflict  even  bodily  violence  on  his  debtor,  which 
the  custom  of  antiquity  allowed  him  to  do.  (The  verb  upareiv  is  not 
pleonastic,  it  is  the  necessary  antecedent  of  -nviyew  =  dj^etv.  In 
ver.  28,  the  reading  d  n  tydteu;  is  to  be  preferred  to  6  ri.  This  last 
plainly  betrays  its  real  nature  as  a  correction  of  the  d  n}  which  is 
not  to  be  understood  as  implying  that  the  debt  is  in  any  way 
doubtful,  but  merely  as  a  courteous  mode  of  expression.  The 
formula  KU$  ov  a-rrodti  rb  dfaikonevov,  reminds  one  of  Matth.  v.  26.  As 
to  its  meaning  in  connexion  with  the  idea  of  the  parable,  see  on 
ver.  34.) 

Ver.  31-33. — It  is  not  undesignedly  that  sorrow  and  not  anger 
is  mentioned  as  the  feeling  of  the  rest  of  the  servants,  for,  the 
former  denotes  the  nobler  emotion  as  cherished  by  men  standing  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  offender  (compare  ver.  34),  and  by  it  are 
the  rest  of  the  servants  contrasted  with  the  single  hard-hearted 
fellow-servant.  If  we  suppose  that  Peter  had  been  the  offended 
party  in  their  contention,  and  so  corresponded  to  the  creditor,  while 
some  one  else  was  the  debtor,  and  that  immediately  not  forgiveness, 
but  revenge  sprung  up  in  his  heart,  the  parable  certainly  gains  a 
very  special  application.  But  we  have  already  called  attention  to 
the  difficulties  of  this  supposition.  In  our  Lord's  rebuke  the  recep- 
tion of  compassion  is  set  forth  as  a  motive  for  its  exercise  towards 
others,  and  precisely  in  this  circumstance  lies  the  whole  point  of  the 
parable. 

Ver.  34,  35. — Against  the  hard-heartedness,  however,  of  the 
sinner,  anger  manifests  itself  on  the  part  of  the  Lord.  Where  man 
cherishes  compassionate  sorrow  for"  the  sins  of  his  fellow-men  (/U/m/, 
see  ver.  31),  wrath  reveals  itself  on  the  part  of  God.  .For,  in  the 
case  of  man,  conscience  testifies  that  he  has  within  him  the  roots 
of  the  same  sin  which  he  sees  in  his  brother,  but  in  God  there  is 
pure  hatred  of  evil.  The  idea  of  the  anger  of  God  does  not  contra- 
dict his  love  (whose  manifestation  in  mildness  is  xdp'S,  grace),  but 
rather,  the  wrath  of  God  is  nothing  else  than  the  manifestation  of 
himself  as  love,  in  opposition  to  evil.  According  to  his  righteous- 
ness, therefore,  which  gives  to  every  one  his  due,  and  which  naturally 
cannot  be  conceived  of  as  dissociated  from  the  essence  of  the  Divine 
love,  God  does  good  in  his  grace  to  those  akin  to  him,  but  inflicts 
woe  in  his  wrath  on  those  alienated  from  him.  Since  man,  however, 
is  not  evil  itself,  but  only  in  one  or  another  respect  admits  it  within 
him,  God's  anger  is  directed  merely  against  the  evil  that  is  in  him. 
In  the  Divine  wrath,  therefore,  there  is  displayed  only  another  form 
VOL.  L— 38 


594  MATTHEW  XVIII.  34,  35. 

of  God's  sanctifying  agency.  When  his  operations  in  mercy  are 
misunderstood  or  abused,  as  by  this  servant,  his  punishments  come 
into  action.  The  punishment  is  here  explained  as  a  napadidovai  rotg 
oig  iv  rq  fahaieq,  delivering  to  the  tormentors  in  prison.  The 
i,  torturers,  are,  according  to  the  connexion,  the  guardians 
of  the  prison,  who,  also,  were  certainly  employed  to  inflict  torture. 
There  were,  however,  no  special  racks  or  tortures  provided  for 
debtors.  It  is  precisely  this  punishment  which  ver.  35  denounces 
against  the  hard-hearted,  who  refuse  to  forgive  as  they  have  been 
forgiven.  The  additional  clause,  dfyizvai,  dnb  roiv  napdi&v,  forgive 
from  the  heart  (Ephes.  vi.  6,  etc  i/w^ffr),  expresses  more  clearly  the 
nature  of  true  forgiveness,  which  is  here  intended  to  be  put  forward 
as  a  characteristic  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom.  It  is  no  mere 
outward  act,  but  presupposes  a  state  of  mind  which  only  true 
repentance  can  produce.  Of  this  inner  state  the  outward  act  of 
forgiveness,  by  word  or  deed,  is  merely  the  corresponding  expression. 
(The  words  ra  -napa-rr-^^ara  avr&v  I  am  disposed,  with  Fritzsche,  to 
hold  as  genuine,  in  opposition  to  Griesbach  and  Schulz ;  for,  as  ver. 
35  contains  the  application  and  short  exposition  of  the  parable,  it  is 
very  much  to  the  purpose  to  explain  the  ddvetov  by  the  term  -napair- 
rupara.  The  verb  dfaevai  is  also  commonly  conjoined  with  an  object, 
comp.  Matth.  vi.  14,  15 ;  Mark  xi.  25,  26.)  The  formula  Trapadidovai 
elg  (f>v^aKifjv,  eeof  ov  d-nodu  irav  rb  otyeihofievov,  deliver  to  prison,  till  he 
has  paid  all  the  debt,  still  demands  here  our  special  consideration  in 
its  connexion  with  the  creditor.  Already  at  Matth.  v.  26,  we  re- 
marked that  it  could  not  denote  everlasting  punishment ;  in  the 
words  twf  ov  it  is  implied  obviously  that  a  limit  is  fixed.  For,  should 
it  be  said  that  in  any  event  the  punishment  must  be  viewed  as  an 
endless  one,  inasmuch  as  the  debt  could  never  possibly  be  liquidated, 
it  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  the  creature  never  can  get  free  from  his 
obligations  to  the  Creator.  But  since,  according  to  the  representa- 
tion in  the  -parable,  the  hard-hearted  servant  is  not  devoid  of  repen- 
tance (he  willingly  admits  his  debt),  he  is  also  susceptible  of  the 
Divine  forgiveness,  and  this  cannot  be  conceived  of  as  existing  without 
manifesting  itself.*  The  purport  of  the  whole,  then,  clearly  seems 

*  The  translator  may  perhaps  be  allowed  to  say  that  this  view  is  one  to  which  he 
cannot  assent.  If  the  amount  of  repentance  implied  in  the  sinner's  merely  admitting 
that  in  point  of  fact  he  is  a  sinner,  be  sufficient  to  ensure  ultimate  salvation,  few  indeed 
can  fail  of  reaching  heaven.  In  that  case  broad  were  the  way  leading  to  life  1  But  how 
the  parable  can  fairly  be  so  construed,  it  is  impossible  to  see.  The  consignment  of  the 
servant  to  prison  is  done  in  the  way  of  punishment,  it  is  done  in  wrath  (op-yiaOei'r),  and 
the  period  fixed  for  terminating  that  punishment  is,  confessedly,  one  which  can  never 
come.  In  the  parable  these  points  seem  essential  and  distinctive.  They  ought  not  to  be 
explained  away,  even  though  they  land  us  in  a  doctrine  so  solemn  as  that  of  eternal 
punishments.  The  reader  who  wishes  to  investigate  the  truth  of  Scripture  on  this  subject, 
may  consult  with  advantage  the  "  Miscellaneous  Observations"  of  President  Edwards — 
the  more  lengthened  work  by  his  son,  Dr.  Edwards,  of  Newhaven,  entitled  "  The 


MATTHEW  XVIII.  34,  35.  595 

to  be  this,  that  when  love  shews  itself  in  a  way  so  imperfect, 
that  it  is  seen  merely  in  the  receptive  form,  not  in  the  communica- 
tive, there  is,  in  that  case,  no  fitness  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  The 
man  devoid  of  love  is  committed  to  the  </>vAa/c?y,  that  the  conviction 
of  his  real  state  may  be  brought  home  to  him.  Thus  it  is  plain  that 
it  is  not  the  standard  of  the  law  which  is  here  applied  (for  accord- 
ing to  law,  it  is  not  unrighteous  to  take  violent  measures  in 
enforcing  debt),  but  that  of  the  Gospel.  He  who  wishes,  however, 
to  be  meted  by  this  measure,  must  himself  apply  it  to  others. 
(Matth.  vii.  2.)  As  the  hard-hearted  servant  did  not  so  act,  the 
severity  of  the  law  fell  on  his  own  head.  The  0-uAa/e?/  here  is  thus 
=  adrjg  =  Visa?  the  general  assembling-place  of  the  dead  who  did 
not  die  in  the  Lord,  but  all  of  whom,  it  does  by  no  means  follow, 
shall  on  this  account  sink  into  eternal  condemnation.  (Compare 
more  at  length  on  Luke  xvi.  19,  seq.)  According  to  1  Peter  iii.  19; 
Matth.  xii.  32,  there  is  plainly  such  a  thing  after  death  as  deliver- 
ance from  the  QvkaKrj  in  behalf  of  some,  and,  according  to  the  con- 
nexion of  the  parable,  we  must  avail  ourselves  of  that  fact  in 
explanation  of  the  circumstances  here  presented  to  us.  Absolute 
exclusion  from  the  face  of  the  Lord  is  made  to  depend  on  the  entire 
want  of  active  and  receptive  love,  and  so,  on  the  want  of  faith, 
without  which  there  can  be  no  love  in  the  soul.  (See  on  Matth.  ix. 
2 ;  xiii.  58.) 

salvation  of  all  men  strictly  examined,  and  the  endless  punishment  of  those  who  die 
impenitent,  argued,  etc.,"  and  Fuller's  Eight  Letters  to  Vidler  on  the  doctrine  of  Univer- 
sal Salvation. — TR. 


FOURTH    PART. 
OF  CHRIST'S  LAST  JOURNEY  TO  JERUSALEM, 

AND  CERTAIN  INCIDENTS  WHICH  TOOK  PLACE  THERE. 
(Luke  ix.  51 — xxL  38 ;  Matth.  xLx.  1 — xxv.  46 ;  Mark  x.  1 — siii.  37.) 


FIRST  SECTION. 
REPORT  OF  THE  JOURNEY  BY  LUKE. 

(Lake  ix.  61—  xviii.  14.) 

HITHERTO,  we  have  been  able  to  make  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
the  groundwork  of  our  exposition,  as  it  was  easy,  in  the  course  of 
his  narrative,  to  take  up  the  little  that  was  peculiar  to  Mark  or 
Luke.  In  this  fourth  part,  however,  we  find  ourselves  compelled, 
throughout  the  first  section,  to  take  Luke  for  our  guide,  as  he 
records  incidents  and  discourses  of  the  Saviour  which  none  of 
the  other  Evangelists  touch.  Since  Luke,  in  recording  this  series 
of  communications,  which  are  peculiar  to  himself,  proceeds  on  the 
fact  of  a  journey  to  Jerusalem  which  seems  to  be  described  as  the 
last  ;  and  since  the  Saviour  on  various  occasions  throughout  this 
section  is  described  as  engaged  in  travelling  (ix.  57  ;  x.  38  ;  xiii. 
22;  xvii.  11),  it  is  not  improbable  that  we  are  in  it  furnished  with  a 
report  of  the  journey.  Certainly,  however,  it  is  difficult  to  say  what 
journey  this  report  is  intended  to  recount.  For,  to  hold  it  as  the 
last  journey  of  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  an  opinion  which 
one  might  adopt  on  comparing  Luke  xviii.  35  ;  xix.  29,  with  Matth. 
xx.  17,  29  ;  xxi.  1,  would  bring  the  account  of  Luke  into  direct 
contradiction  with  that  of  John.*  For,  according  to  the  latter 
Evangelist,  the  Lord  left  Galilee  to  attend  the  feast  of  dedication 
(x.  22),  and  never  returned  to  Galilee,  but  remained  in  Peraea. 
(John  x.  40,  where  is  found  added  the  statement  ical  EJJLELVEV 


*  Against  this  hypothesis  comp.  my  Krit.  der  Ev.  Geschichte,  §  31,  32.     From  ch.  10, 
Luke  manifestly  arranges  his  matter  according  to  the  contents,  the  subjects  treated.  —  [K 


LUKE  IX.  51.  597 

From  Pereea  the  Saviour  came  back  to  Bethany  in  order  to  raise 
Lazarus  (John  xi).  After  this  miracle,  however,  he  went  to 
Ephraim  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  desert  (John  xi.  54),  and 
stayed  there  with  his  disciples.  It  thus  appears  that,  according  to 
John,  the  journey  of  Jesus  to  the  last  passover  did  not  begin 
exactly  at  Galilee  ;  there  intervenes,  it  would  rather  seem,  his  stay 
at  Jerusalem  during  the  feast  of  dedication,  and  at  Peraea  and 
Ephraim  in  the  interval.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  it  appear 
as  if  Jesus  went  directly  from  Galilee  to  the  passover.  If,  however, 
to  escape  these  difficulties,  we  understand  the  account  as  applying 
to  the  journey  from  Ephraim  to  Jerusalem,  our  view  would  well 
harmonize  with  the  passage  Luke  ix.  51,  for  the  lifting  up  of  the 
Lord  is  there  expressly  spoken  of,  which  stands  in  direct  connexion 
with  his  journey  from  Ephraim  to  the  passover.  But  in  that  case 
the  passage  Luke  x.  13,  seq.,  which  treats  of  the  guilt  of  the  cities, 
Chorazm  and  Bethsaida,  is  altogether  removed  from  its  proper  con- 
nexion, for  Jesus  had  left  Galilee  long  before.  Nor  can  Luke  x. 
38  be  reconciled  with  this  view,  for,  according  to  that  passage,  Jesus 
is  already  in  Bethany,  while  at  xvii.  11,  he  again  appears  on  the  boun- 
daries of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  and  not  till  Luke  xix.  29  (compare 
Matth.  xxi:  1 ;  Mark  xi.  1),  makes  his  entry  into  Jerusalem.  Be- 
sides, in  that  case  Luke's  narrative  leaves  too  great  a  space  in  the 
life  of  Christ.  Hence  the  chronological  series  of  events  must  be  at 
once  and  wholly  abandoned,  and  the  idea  of  our  having  in  this 
section  a  journal  of  travel  must  be  given  up,  unless  its  varia- 
tions from  John  can  be  removed,  who,  undoubtedly,  claims  the 
preference  in  points  of  chronological  or  topographical  exactness. 
This,  however,  seems  to  be  effected  most  simply  by  the  hypothesis 
of  Schleiermacher  (on  the  writings  of  Luke,  p.  158,  seq.),  which 
regards  the  section  as  blending  the  narratives  of  two  journeys.* 
This  acute  and  learned  man  observes  most  correctly,  that,  not  Luke 
xviii.  14,  must  be  regarded  as  the  conclusion  of  the  section,  but  Luke 
xix.  48,  which  records  the  entry  into  Jerusalem.f  With  this, 
the  account  of  the  journey  fittingly  ends,  while  at  Luke  xviii.  14, 
no  termination  is  to  be  found.  This  entire  account,  then,  according 
to  Schleicrmacher's  view,  Luke  inserted  without  change,  and  it 

°  Care  should  be  taken  that  we  are  not  tempted  to  confound  this  hypothesis  with  De 
Wette's  view  of  this  section,  which  he  thus  expresses:  "We  shall  have  to  notice  in 
this  section  an  unchronological  and  unhistorical  collection,  which  was  occasioned  pro- 
bably by  the  circumstance  that  Luke  found  a  good  deal  of  gospel  material  which  he 
could  not  elsewhere  arrange  into  its  place,  and  which,  consequently,  he  here  threw 
together. 

f  If  nevertheless,  in  our  exposition,  we  keep  to  Luke  xviii.  14,  as  the  conclusion  of 
the  section,  this  is  done  simply  because  our  leading  object  is  not  criticism  so  much  as  the 
full  understanding  of  the  facts  in  themselves.  To  facilitate  this,  however,  we  must,  after 
Luke  xviii.  15,  again  take  Matthew  as  our  groundwork,  because  his  Gospel,  subsequently 
to  that  point,  becomes  richer  in  detaiL 


598  LUKE  IX.  51. 

again  owed  \ta  existence  to  some  one  who  made  use  of  two  smaller 
imperfect  reports  of  two  different  journeys  of  Christ,  and  incorpo- 
rated the  one  with  the  other,  not  knowing  that  between  the  two  he 
abode  for  a  time  at  Jerusalem.  The  conjoining  of  .the  narratives 
of  these  two  journeys  Schleiermacher  does  not  ascribe  to  Luke  him- 
self, for  this  reason,  that  his  practice  is  to  insert  into  his  narrative 
the  compositions  of  others  unchanged.  Now,  although  this  last 
opinion  seems  to  me  unsupported  by  proof,  and  Luke  is  rather  to 
be  considered  as  having  rewrought  the  materials  presented  to  him 
(it  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  Luke  rewrote  certain  portions, 
even  though  he  did  insert  into  his  work  others  unchanged,  e.  g., 
the  family  histories  [ch.  i.  ii.]  as  holy  relics),  yet  on  the  whole, 
this  view  is  satisfactory.  For,  according  to  it,  Luke  can  be  com- 
pletely reconciled  with  the  more  precise  account  of  John.  The 
circumstance  that  at  Luke  x.  38,  Jesus  is  already  at  Bethany,  while 
at  xvii.  11,  he  is  again  on  the  borders  of  Galilee  and  Samaria,  is 
easily  explained,  if  the  former  passage  be  referred  to  the  time  of 
his  presence  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  dedication,  the  latter  to 
his  presence  at  Ephraim  (John  xi.  54).  The  expressions  used  by 
John  regarding  the  Lord's  stay  at  Ephraim  (dterptfte  fierd  r&v  \iaQr]T&v 
avrov)  allow  very  well  the  idea  that  short  excursions  were  made  from 
that  point,  or  that  he  had  gone  out  of  the  direct  road  in  travelling 
up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  last  passover.  This  being  presupposed,  the 
only  difficulty  that  remains  in  the  section,  is,  that  nothing  should 
be  said  of  Christ's  coming  to  Jerusalem,  and  his  stay  there.  What 
is  recorded  in  Luke  x.  25,  seq.;  xiii.  1,  seq.,  might  certainly  have 
happened  in  Jerusalem,  but  there  is  no  distinct  intimation  to  that 
effect.  This  argumentum  a  silentio,  however,  is  the  less  calculated  to 
overturn  the  entire  hypothesis,  because  the  circumstance  admits  an 
easy  explanation  from  the  general  want  of  topographical  references. 
The  feast  journeys  are  entirely  omitted  in  Luke,  as  also  in  Matthew 
and  Mark,  and  consequently  it  -  is  not  surprising  that  he  does  not 
give  his  readers  fuller  information  as  to  the  minuter  incidents  after 
the  last  journey  from  Galilee.*  It  is  enough  that  on  matters  of 
fact  there  is  not  the  slightest  contradiction  between  the  account  of 
John  and  that  of  Luke. 

Finally,  with  respect  to  the  mode  of  treatment,  Luke's  peculiar 
way  of  rendering  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  is  in  this  section  very 
manifestly  displayed.  (Compare  the  Introduction,  §  6.)  With 
great  delicacy  and  truth  he  gives  the  nicer  shades  of  the  dia- 
logue. True,  this  accuracy  belongs  primarily  to  the  original  author 
of  the  report  which  Luke  made  use  of ;  but  the  Evangelist  shews 

*  The  same  thing  applies  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  speak  in  terms  quite  as  general 
of  Christ's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.    (Comp.  on  Matth.  xix.  1,  ani  xsd.  1.) 


LUKE  IX.  51.  599 

his  appreciation  of  such  accounts,  by  not  defacing  their  peculiarities  ; 
and  besides,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Luke  displays  in  his  own 
writing  a  similar  skill. 


§  1.  JAMES  AND  JOHN  ABE  INCENSED  AGAINST  THE  SAMARITANS. 

(Luke  ix.  51-56.) 

The  words  with  which  Luke's  lengthened  account  opens,  can 
only  be  understood  as  applying  to  the  Saviour's  last  journey,  which 
ended  in  his  being  offered  on  the  cross  and  exalted  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  expression  dvdhrppig,  receiving  up  (the  substantive  is 
found  only  in  this  passage,  the  verb,  on  the  contrary,  is  often  used, 
of  Christ's  exaltation,  to  the  Father's  right  hand,  Acts  i.  2,  22  ;  1 
Tim.  iii.  16),  denotes  here  Christ's  elevation  to  the  Father,  which 
necessarily  presupposes  his  humiliation.  That  it  is  not  his  being 
lifted  up  on  the  cross  which  primarily  we  are  to  understand,  is  shewn 
by  the  expression  rj/j-epai  rrjs  dvaA^gw^,  in  which  the  whole  process 
of  his  exaltation,  from  the  resurrection  to  the  ascension,  is  included. 
(Only  figuratively,  according  to  the  analogy  of  John  xii.  32,  33, 
could  the  expression  refer  to  the  crucifixion.)  The  period  of  this 
exaltation  is  regarded  as  fixed  by  a  higher  necessity,  and  the  past 
as  a  space  extending  to  that  point,  and  requiring  to  be  filled  up. 
(Whenever  the  words  TrXrjpovadai  or  av^Xri^ovadai  [the  two  expres- 
sions are  used  synonymously]  are  applied  to  time,  we  must  always 
thus  assume  that  some  definite  period  has  been  fixed,  either  by 
human  [Acts  ii.  1]  or  Divine  [Gal.  iv.  4],  determination.)  But  it 
may  be  a  question  how  far  this  fixed  period  can  be  said  to  have 
already  come  on  the  occasion  of  Christ's  departure  from  Galilee, 
when,  according  to  John,  so  much  was  to  intervene  before  the  pass- 
over.  The  expression  employed,  iv  TO>  ovpnkrjpovadat  rag  ifaepag  rf)$ 
dvak'rj'ipeug,  when  the  days  were  accomplished  in  which  he  should  be 
received  up,  seems  more  applicable  to  the  journey  of  Jesus  from 
Ephraim  to  Jerusalem  (John  xi.  54),  than  when  he  was  leaving 
Galilee  for  the  feast  of  dedication.  But,  looking  simply  with  the 
eye  of  a  Galilean,  and  such  we  must  suppose  the  narrator  to  have 
been,  it  is  easy  to  explain  how  the  Saviour's  last  departure  from 
Galilee  must  stand  in  direct  connexion  with  his  end,  and  all  that 
intervenes  be  passed  over  in  silence.  In  his  view  the  scene  of  all 
Christ's  mighty  labours  shifted  between  Galilee  and  Jerusalem  ; 
and  so  soon,  therefore,  as  he  had  finally  left  the  former  place,  his 
work,  in  the  view  of  the  writer,  seemed  finished.  The  formula 
Trpdmo-TTov  orrjpi&iv,  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  spVnV  errs  en»n,  Jerem. 
xxi.  10.  The  LXX.  indeed  so  translate  it.  Gesenius  [in  Lex.  sub. 

\ 


600  LUKE  IX.  51-54 


voc.  e^ia]  compares  with  it  the  phrase  at  Ezek.  iv.  3,  VN  c?:3  -pan 
which,  however,  the  LXX.  translate  &TOIIM&IV  "npoaumw. 

Ver.  52,  53.  —  In  order  to  prepare  a  lodging,  and  provide  the 
necessary  supplies,  the  Saviour  sent  messengers  forward  to  a  Sama- 
ritan village,  but  the  inhabitants  turned  them  away.  —  la/wipem^, 
Samaritan,  in  the  Hebrew  •'sinaio  (from  li-nsfc,  the  capital  of  the  dis- 
trict), denotes,  as  is  well  known,  an  inhabitant  of  that  province  of 
Palestine,  in  which,  after  the  Babylonian  exile,  there  arose  a  mixed 
population  formed  from  the  Jews  left  behind,  and  the  foreign  tribes 
transplanted  thither.  (2  Kings  xvii.  24.)  They  arrayed  themselves 
against  the  Jews  who  returned  from  the  exile,  and  at  a  later  period 
they  set  up  on  Mount  Gerizim  a  peculiar  form  of  worship  modelled 
on  that  at  Jerusalem.  The  opposition  continued  down  to  the  time 
of  Christ  and  after  it  (John  iv.  9,  ov  ovyxptivrai  'lovdaloi  2a/uapemwf), 
although,  as  was  natural,  it  did  not  shew  itself  alike  vehemently  in 
all  individuals  (John  iv.  30),  nor  at  all  times.  At  festival  seasons, 
when  the  religious  life  among  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  was  in  its 
fullest  vigour,  their  hostility  was  most  powerfully  developed,  the 
more  especially  that  a  leading  point  of  difference  between  them  was 
the  place  of  Divine  worship.  Hence,  in  this  instance,  it  is  men- 
tioned as  the  ground  of  their  unfriendliness  ;  on  TO  Trpocrwrzw  avrov 
T/V  rcopevopevov  dg  'Igpovaa/U^,  because  his  face  ivas  turned  toward 
Jerusalem.  (In  regard  to  this  use  of  Trpoawnw  compare  2  Sam.  xvii. 
11,  an;?:?  fcisVh  5pse.  The  term  d^odai  includes,  as  at  Matth  x.  14, 
and  the  parallel  passages,  all  the  friendly  services  of  hospitality  in 
its  widest  sense.) 

Ver.  54.  —  That  James  and  John,  who  were  here  introduced  as 
speaking,  are  the  two  brethren,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  probable,  even  though  Mark  iii.  17,  as  will  be  immediately 
shewn,  cannot  be  adduced  in  proof  of  the  fact.  In  their  fiery  zeal 
against  the  churlishness  of  the  Samaritans,  they  are  inclined  to 
bring  down  on  them  a  destructive  judgment,  and  only  await  the 
command  of  their  Lord  (tfeAet?)  to  be  themselves  the  instruments 
of  carrying  such  a  judgment  into  effect.  A  bold  faith  reveals  itself 
in  these  words,  and  a  powerful  conviction  of  the  Lord's  majesty,  and 
of  the  relation  in  which  they  stood  to  him.  Thus  far  their  frame  of 
mind  betrays  nothing  censurable.  But  the  form  in  which  it  was 
manifested  bore  altogether  an  Old  Testament  type.  On  noticing, 
therefore,  the  expression  of  disapprobation  in  the  look  of  Jesus,  they 
sought  to  ground  their  declaration  on  an  example  from  the  Old 
Testament,  appealing  to  what  is  related  in  the  history  of  Elias  (2 
Kings  i.  10,  12).  (The  omission  of  the  words  &g  KCU  'HAmf  K-noirjae 
in  some  MSS.  is  assuredly  a  false  reading.  The  following  words 
plainly  contrast  the  disciples  with  Elias,  the  Old  Testament  with 
the  New.) 


LUKE  IX.  55,  56. 

Ver.  55,  56. — As  Jesus  saw  that  this  fiery  zeal  of  his  disciples 
was  not  a  mere  outburst  of  feeling,  but  arose  from  their  confounding 
the  relation  of  the  economy  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  New,  he 
in  a  few  words  guides  them  to  a  right  view  of  the  point.  After  his 
lengthened  intercourse  with  them,  he  could  take  for  granted  that 
the  distinction  between  the  two  economies  was  not  only  clearly 
known  to  them,  but  familiar  to  their  habits  of  thought.'"5  The 
simple  mention  of  it  was  sufficient  to  recall  them  to  the  conviction 
that  the  compassionate  love  of  the  Gospel  had  been  forgotten  by 
them,  in  the  justice  of  the  law.  The  "  Spirit,"  therefore,  in  these 
words  of  the  Lord,  is  to  be  understood  hi  its  usual  sense  ;  for  between 
you  and  Elias  there  is  a  contrast  in  respect  of  the  principle  that 
animates  the  two.  This  principle  is  the  "  Spirit."  Both  principles 
were  pure  and  Divine,  but  the  heavenly  element  in  its  progress 
through  humanity,  presents  its  perfect  form  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel,  whose  essence  is  grace  and  mercy,  which  were  personified  in 
the  Saviour  (John  i.  17).  Elias,  therefore,  does  nothing  wrong  when 
he  commands  fire  to  fall  from  heaven  ;  as  a  messenger  of  God,  he 
exercised  justice.  But  Jesus  did  better,  inasmuch  as  he  exercised 
mercy,  which  he  had  come  to  render  supreme  amidst  the  human 
race.  The  disciples  therefore  sinned  only  in  so  far  as  they  who 
ought  to  have  received  into  their  hearts  the  perfect  spirit  of  forgiv- 
ing love,  allowed  themselves  still  to  be  swayed  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment spirit  of  avenging  justice.  As  they  were  aware  of  the  distinction, 
and  had  access  to  the  spirit  of  pure  love,  they  sinned  in  that  very 
act  which  on  the  part  of  Elias  was  right.  (At  Heb.  xii.  24,  the 
same  contrast  is  denoted  by  Christ  and  Abel.  Abel's  blood  demands 
vengeance,  as  representing  justice,  the  blood  of  Jesus  pleads  for  for- 
giveness, for  in  him  dwelleth  grace.)  Many  are  of  opinion  that  it 
was  in  consequence  of  this  occurrence,  that  the  sons  of  Zebedee 
received  the  name  of  Boavepye?  (Mark  iii.  17).  As  regards,  first,  the 
etymological  explanation  of  the  expression,  it  has  already  been 
rightly  given  by  Mark,  inasmuch  as  he  adds  o  toriv  viol  Bpovrij^  = 
l$i  \sa.  (The  poave,  (3ave  is  probably  the  Galilean  form  for  J3eve ;  tan, 
however,  and  the  kindred  ***}  in  the  sense  of  to  quake,  to  tremble,  to 
roar,  expresses  with  great  propriety  the  idea  of  thunder.)  The  only 
thing  remaining  obscure  is,  what  this  name  refers  to.  The  older 
Christian  interpreters  found  the  resemblance  in  the  majestic  and 

*  The  most  numerous  and  best  MSS.  (particularly  A,  B,  C,  B,  G,  H,  L,  S,  and  others, 
see  the  New  Testament  of  Griesbach — Shulz  on  this  passage),  even  omit  the  words  of  the 
textus  receptus,  Kal  elirev  OVK  ol6a~e  otov  TTVEV  p.arof  lore  vpele,  as  given  by  the  Cod.  D. 
and  others.  In  any  case,  the  longer  recension  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  6  yup  vide  TOV 
dvOpuirov  OVK  T/WK  ipv^uf  dvBpurruv  uTrol.taat,  aAAd  euaai,  is  an  unauthentic  addition,  and 
even  the  shorter  form  of  it  is  not  beyond  suspicion.  The  supplementary  clause,  however, 
corresponds  perfectly  with  the  whole  connexion,  and  the  origin  of  the  gloss  is  easily  ex- 
plained, inasmuch  as  the  IneTipjjaev  seemed  to  call  for  a  closer  definition. 


LUKE  IX.  55,  56. 

lofty  impression  made  by  thunder,  so  that  the  name,  sons  of  thun- 
der, was  used  not  in  the  way  of  blame  but  of  praise,  as  expressing 
the  strength  of  that  holy  zeal  which  animated  the  sons  of  Zebedee. 
More  recent  interpreters,  however,  frequently  refer  it  to  the  fact 
before  us,  and  understand  it  in  the  way  of  censure,  and  as  intended 
to  characterize  a  false  and  merely  natural  zeal.  (See  further  details 
in  the  learned  treatise  by  Gurlitt  in  Ullmann's  Studien,  vol.  ii.,  part 
iv,,  p.  715,  seq.)  Were  it  proved  that  the  name  referred  to  this 
passage,  the  latter  explanation  would  undoubtedly  recommend  itself 
as  the  more  probable,  for  the  term  emripav,  rebuke,  in  Christ's  dis- 
course, is  easily  reconciled  with  any  name  of  praise,  as  the  disciples 
could  then  have  been  merely  reminded  of  the  name  (already  on  a  for- 
mer occasion  bestowed  on  them)  so  that  the  connexion  would  stand 
thus,  "  know  ye  not  that  ye  ought  to  be  led  by  another  spirit,  that 
as  ye  are  the  sons  of  zeal  ?"  But,  granting  even  this  to  be  the 
true  connexion,  it  seems  to  yield  no  thought  that  suits  the  context, 
for  there  is  nothing  contradictory  between  the  name  of  the  disciples 
and  their  conduct,  inasmuch  as  they  shewed  no  want  of  zeal  but  of 
mildness.  And  yet  such  a  contrast  is  assuredly  required  by  the 
connexion.  Moreover,  on  other  grounds,  it  seems  to  me  improbable, 
that  the  name  sons  of  thunder  is  to  be  associated  with  the  occur- 
rence here  recorded.  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  unexampled  in 
Bible  history,  and  stands  opposed  to  the  idea  of  the  new  name,  that 
a  second  designation  should  be  given  to  any  one  in  the  way  of 
punishment.  In  this  way,  his  sin  would  be,  as  it  were,  immortalized. 
Secondly,  the  position  of  the  name  in  Mark  iii.  17,  is  against  the 
supposition  of  its  involving  censure.  It  stands  entirely  parallel  to 
the  name  Peter  which  was  given  to  Simon,  and  it  is  therefore 
hardly  credible  that  the  first  name  is  one  of  praise,  marking  the 
spiritual  character  of  the  first  apostle,  and  the  second  an  epithet  of 
censure.  And  it  is  the  less  credible  when  we  consider  that  the  three 
apostles  first  named  at  Mark  iii.  17,  and  furnished  with  surnames, 
are  precisely  those  who  stood  nearest  to  the  Lord.  We  hence  re- 
gard the  fathers  as  entirely  right  in  recognizing  in  the  name  "  sons 
of  thunder,"  a  description  of  the  spiritual  character  of  the  two  sons 
of  Zebedee.  Thus  the  bestowal  of  these  names  acquires  in  the  case 
of  the  apostles  the  same  significancy  which  the  new  names  (Abraham 
for  Abram,  Israel  for  Jacob)  have  in  the  Old  Testament.  They 
characterize  the  new  men,  and  are,  as  it  were,  symbols  of  the  new 
nature.  (Is.  Ixii.  2  ;  Ixv.  15  ;  Kev.  ii.  17.)  How  far  the  name  sons 
of  thunder  agreed  with  the  personal  dispositions  of  James  and  John, 
cannot  be  shewn  in  regard  to  the  former,  for  no  detailed  account  of 
him  is  given.  In  reference  to  John,  however,  it  may  seem  doubtful 
how  far  the  name  is  appropriately  chosen,  as  it  has  been  usual  to 
regard  him  as  of  a  weak  nature.  But  as  we  have  often  remarked, 


LUKE  IX.  55-57.  603 

to  attribute  weakness  to  John  is  wholly  to  mistake  his  nature.  His 
whole  writings  shew  that  with  all  its  passive  gentleness,  his  charac- 
ter combined  active  energy,  and  sternness  even  to  severity  against 
evil  ;*  it  was  this  which  the  surname  in  question  denoted,  and  thus 
the  union  of  energy  with  humility  in  Peter,  of  decision  and  severity 
with  gentleness  in  James  and  John,  formed  the  basis  of  their  new 
nature.f 


§  2.  OF  FOLLOWING  JESUS. 

(Luke  ix.  5'7-62  ;  Matth.  viil  19-22.) 

The  short  passage  which  here  follows,  flowing  directly  from  the 
contemplation  of  the  immediate  circumstances,  appears  to  hold  its 
place  most  appropriately  in  the  narrative  of  a  journey.  Some  one 
(according  to  Matthew  he  was  no  less  than  a  ypanfiarevg,  scribe)  who 
had  been  powerfully  attracted  by  the  Saviour,  expressed  on  the  way 
a  wish  to  accompany  him,  and  Jesus  sets  before  his  view  the  diffi- 
culties attending  his  life  and  labours.  In  Matthew  a  portion  of  this 
passage  stands  amidst  a  collection  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  and 
consequently  in  a  less  appropriate  connexion.  Nay,  in  the  account 
of  Matthew  there  is  wanting  that  very  point  which,  with  Luke, 
stands  prominently  forth  as  the  connecting  link  with  the  preceding 
narrative.  For,  as  the  sufferings  which  his  enemies  were  preparing 
for  the  Saviour  had  been  there  described,  so  the  following  history 
states  how  it  stood  between  Jesus  and  those  friends  whose  affections 
his  appearance  and  his  words  attracted.  One  portion  of  them 
pressed  most  hastily  forward,  but  a  single  word  as  to  the  difficulties 
caused  them  to  withdraw  ;  another  portion  of  them  were  called  by 
the  Lord  himself,  but  their  anxiety  on  the  subject  of  the  world  de- 
terred them  from  at  once  embracing  the  call.  In  Luke,  then,  we 
are  not  to  overlook  the  contrast  between  "  Some  one  said  to  him," 
and  "  Jesus  said  to  another,"  ver.  59,  which  mark  the  several  posi- 
tions of  Christ's  different  friends. 

*  Let  John's  first  epistle  especially  be  read.  It  is  full  of  Divine  ftpovrrj  as  well  in  its 
descriptions  of  the  true  spirit  as  of  the  false  (comp.  iv.  1,  seq).  He  who  considers  the 
Apocalypse  to  have  been  written  by  John  will  not  fail  to  trace  in  it  also  the  character  of 
spiritual  power.  [John's  relation  to  Christ  is  femininely  passive ;  filled  by  him,  it  is 
that  of  manly  energy  against  everything  anti-Christian.  Smiting  and  crushing,  like  a 
genuine  son  of  thunder,  he  turns  the  force  of  a  heaven-descended  fire  against  the  princi- 
ples of  ungodliness.] 

•j-  A  doubt  as  to  this  view  may  be  raised  by  the  circumstance  that  the  name  Sons  of 
Thunder  never  elsewhere  again  occurs.  Had  it  been  intended  as  the  designation  of  their 
new  nature,  one  may  suppose  that  like  the  name  Peter  it  would  have  been  generally 
used.  As  it  was,  however,  bestowed  on  two  persons  at  once,  it  could  not  like  the 
name  Peter  come  into  general  use,  and  this  sufficiently  explains  its  being  passed  over  in 
Bilence. 


604  LUKE  IX.  57-60. 


Ver.  57,  58.  —  The  address  a/coAov^ffw  ooi  o-nov  dv  dTrepxr},  I  will 
follow  tliee  wherever  thou  goest,  plainly  implies  a  certain  conscious- 
ness already  of  the  difficulties  involved  in  being  the  companion  of 
Jesus.  The  "wherever  thou  goest"  cannot  refer  merely  to  the 
change  of  locality,  but  denotes  dangers,  for  example  those  attending 
the  journeys  of  Jesus  to  the  feasts,  in  which  every  one  acquainted 
with  the  circumstances  (and  that  this  well-disposed  scribe  was  ac- 
quainted with  them  we  must  believe),  must  have  seen  peril  both 
for  the  Saviour  and  those  about  him.  The  words  then  are  akin  to 
the  exclamation  of  Thomas,  ayw/zev  KOI  rjfielg  Iva  dnoddv^nev  per' 
avrov  (John  xi.  16),  and  with  Peter's  declaration,  Matth.  xxvi.  35, 
inasmuch  as  both  these  declarations,  like  that  of  the  scribe  before  us, 
came  from  the  natural  man,  who,  failing  to  weigh  the  greatness  of 
the  self-denial  required,  quickly  starts  upon  the  path,  but  soon  falls. 
According  to  the  connexion,  the  term  "  follow"  refers  primarily  to 
an  external  companionship,  but  it  also  involves  at  the  same  time  a 
spiritual  following,  i.  e.,  the  choice  of  that  path  of  life  which  Christ 
opened,  a  walk  in  righteousness  and  truth,  and  consequently  a  con- 
test undertaken  with  unrighteousness  and  falsehood.  The  Lord 
acknowledging,  indeed,  the  good  intentions  of  the  suppliant,  but 
perceiving  his  weakness,  sets  before  him  in  the  strongest  terms  the 
difficulty  of  following  him.  The  want  of  necessaries,  which  are 
provided  by  the  Creator  evfin  for  the  lower  animals,  of  personal 
property  and  the  shelter  of  a  roof,  must  be  encountered  in  following 
the  Son  of  man.  (^wAeof  occurs  only  in  this  passage.  Hesychius 
explains  it  as  ro-noq  ov  rd  Orjpia  Koipdrai.  —  KaraoKijvG)oig  =  13»».) 
The  proper  sense  of  OVK  £%eiv  TTOV  rrjv  Kefakrjv  ickiveiv^  not  having 
where  to  lay  his  head,  is  that  of  the  entire  renunciation  of  everything 
which  man  can  call  his  own,  which  was  exhibited  even  externally  in 
the  life  of  the  Saviour,  but  which  is  to  be  spiritually  repeated  in  the 
life  of  all  his  followers,  as  we  are  taught  at  1  Cor.  vii.  29,  seq.  Al- 
though it  is  not  expressly  recorded  what  effect  this  admonition  of 
Jesus  produced,  yet  from  the  following  narratives  we  may  infer  that 
probably  it  had  deterred  the  scribe.  The  remarks  of  the  two  per- 
sons whom  Jesus  asked  to  follow  him  lead  us  to  conjecture  that  they 
could  not  as  yet  resolve  to  abandon  everything  in  order  to  embrace 
Christ,  for  the  necessity  of  so  doing  is  brought  forward  as  the  main 
idea  of  the  short  narrative.  (See  on  Matth.  xix.  27.) 

Ver.  59,  60.  —  As  in  the  preceding  case,  the  scribe  had  volun- 
teered to  follow  the  Saviour,  Jesus  in  this  instance  himself  gives 
the  invitation  to  do  so.  While  the  former,  however,  was  deterred  by 
difficulties,  the  latter  were  apparently  held  back  by  sacred  duties. 
The  truth  of  greatest  prominence  to  be  drawn  from  the  following 
narrative,  and  to  which  most  importance  should  be  given,  is  this, 
that  not  merely  sins  and  crimes  (which  call  first  for  forgiveness 


LUKE  IX.  60-62.  605 

through  that  repentance  and  faith  which  the  following  of  Christ 
presupposes)  but  even  legal  righteousness,  nay,  regard  to  the  nohlest 
duties  of  earthly  relationship,  may  keep  men  hack  from  following 
Jesus.  Burying  one's  father  and  taking  leave  of  one's  household 
must  he  held,  when  viewed  hi  an  earthly  light,  to  denote  even  noble 
and  tender  duties.  (The  verb  dnord^aodai,  ver.  61,  is  in  the  sense 
of  to  take  leave.  The  relatives  are  to  be  considered  as  at  a  distance, 
so  that  he  means  to  stipulate  for  a  journey  home.)  We  have  here, 
therefore,  a  commentary  of  fact  on  Matth.  x.  37.  In  obeying  the 
command  of  Christ  all  other  duties  are  absorbed  ;  not  that  they  are 
thus  depreciated  in  importance  or  neglected,  but  that  every  act  of 
man  assumes  its  just  relation  to  the  ultimate  ends  alike  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  the  entire  body.  From  this  point  of  view  the  Saviour 
can  ask  the  son  to  abandon  to  others  even  the  last  duties  to  a 
deceased  father  ;  the  favourable  moment  for  giving  to  his  whole 
course  of  life  a  nobler  direction  must  be  seized  at  once.  This  man 
having  already  become  a  believer,  must  now  decide  on  consecrating 
his  life  to  the  preaching  of  God's  word  (&ayye/Ule  rqv  ftaotteiav  rov 
Qeov).  The  expression,  let  the  dead  bury  their  own  dead  (dfag  rovf 
veicpovg  Odiftai  rovs  iavr&v  ve/epovf),  has  here  assuredly  no  reference 
to  the  Jewish  opinion  that  he  who  touched  the  dead  became  pollu- 
ted. Jesus  merely  wished  to  bring  immediately  to  a  decision  the 
man  whom  he  had  called  to  follow  him,  and  induce  him  to  give  up 
for  his  sake  everything  in  itself  lawful,  nay,  even  that  which  was 
considered  necessary.  Just  as  little  ought  the  "  dead"  to  be  referred 
to  the  grave-diggers,  a  view  which  enfeebles  the  whole  sense  of  the 
passage.  The  Saviour  rather  regards  the  call  given  as  a  call  to 
eternal  life,  and  demands  that  the  person  called  should  uncondition- 
ally resolve  in  favour  of  it,  and  that  he  should  leave  everything  of 
an  external  nature  (even  such  acts  of  piety  towards  a  deceased 
father  after  the  flesh)  to  those  who  were  as  yet  wholly  occupied 
with  externals,  instead  of  which  occupations  he  should  yield  obedi- 
ence to  the  call  of  his  heavenly  Father.  Thus  the  word  veicpos, 
dead}  must  in  one  of  these  instances  be  understood  as  used 
figuratively  of  those  who  have  not  yet  been  awakened  from  the 
death  of  natural  life  (Horn.  vii.  8,  seq).  The  dead  who  are  to  be 
buried,  are  of  course  those  naturally  deceased  ;  but  the  language 
"  bury  their  own  dead"  unquestionably  intimates  that  the  deceased 
were  in  a  condition  in  no  respect  essentially  different  from  that  of 
the  living  who  were  to  bury  them. 

Ver.  61,  62. — To  the  last,  who  like  the  others  presents  himself 
as  a  follower,  the  Saviour  replies  with  the  statement  of  a  general 
principle  which  rebukes  his  declaration,  and  conveys  the  idea  that 
an  unconditional  determination  was  necessary  for  having  part  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  %elpa  Imftdkheiv  tV  aporpov,  putting  the  hand 


606  LUKE  IX.  61,  62;   X.  1. 


to  the  plough,  united  with  the  ftXeneiv  dg  ra  d-ntou,  looking  back, 
denote  figuratively,  a  state  of  indecision,  irresolution.  (Gen.  xix. 
26.)  In  opposition  to  this  we  are  to  look  on  the  entire  determina- 
tion of  the  will  as  a  necessary  requisite  to  labouring  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  (evderog,  well-ordered,  fitting,  suitable.  See  Luke  xiv.  35), 
which  lays  claim  to  all  the  powers  of  man.  This  sentence,  however, 
as  well  as  the  preceding  a^e?  rovg  veitpovg  K.  r.  X.  contains  a  truth  of 
permanent  importance  for  all  times  and  circumstances  of  the  church; 
for  never  can  any  one  be  a  disciple  of  Christ  save  he  who  renounces 
all  that  he  has  (Luke  xiv.  33),  and  strives  to  love  God  with  all  his 
powers  (Mark  xii.  30)  ;  since  Christ's  call  to  follow  him  is  the 
call  of  God,  and  man  must  serve  no  master  beside  God  (Luke 
xvi  13). 


§  3.  THE  SENDING  FORTH  OF  THE  SEVENTY  DISCIPLES,  WITH 
THE  ADDRESS  OF  JESUS  TO  THEM. 

(Luke  x.  1-24;  [Matth.  xi.  20-27.]) 

The  sending  out  of  the  seventy  disciples  stands  in  immediate 
connexion  with  the  special  object  of  Luke's  gospel.  Matthew  and 
Mark,  who  wrote  merely  for  Jews,  record  only  the  mission  of  the 
twelve;  Luke,  for  the  sake  of  the  heathen,  [?]  narrates  the  sending 
forth  of  the  seventy,  and  in  the  following  discourse  omits  all  those 
ideas  based  on  the  exclusive  character  of  Judaism,  which  are  men- 
tioned at  Matt.  x.  5,  seq.  (Compare  Eisenmenger's  entd.  Juden- 
thum,  Part  ii.,  p.  3,  seq.,  respecting  the  notion  of  the  Jews  that  there 
were  seventy  distinct  nations  on  the  earth.)  The  passage,  Num.  xi. 
16  seq.,  regarding  the  seventy  elders  to  whom  Moses  imparted  of  his 
spirit,  may  be  compared  as  parallel.  To  this  corresponded  the  San- 
hedrim of  seventy  assessors  with  the  president  (t^to)  who  represented 
Moses.  From  the  idea  that  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were 
seventy- two  in  number  (i.  e.,  twice  six  times  six,  or  six  times  twelve), 
arose  the  reading  ^do^KovTa  dvo,  which  is  supported  certainly  by 
some  good  MSS.  (as  B.  D.)  but  must  yield  in  authority  to  the  com- 
mon one.  Strikingly,  however,  as  this  fact  agrees  with  the  general 
scope  of  the  gospel  of  Luke,  it  seems  little  in  harmony  with  that  nar- 
rative of  the  Saviour's  journey  of  which  it  forms  a  part.  This  send- 
ing forth  of  the  disciples  in  the  midst  of  a  journey  seems  scarcely 
natural.  [?]  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  in  the  information  thus 
given,  a  passage  from  some  earlier  period  had  been  inserted  into  the 
account  of  their  last  journey.  Perhaps  the  Saviour,  shortly  before 
his  final  departure  from  Galilee,  having  given  up  all  hope  of  Cho- 
razin,  Bethsaida  and  Capernaum,  sent  forth  once  more  the  seventy 


LUKE  X.  1,  2.  607 

messengers  into  some  other  region.  This  harmonizes  alike  with  the 
mention  of  the  fall  of  these  cities  (x.  13-15),  and  with  the  remark- 
able declaration  (ver.  18)  which  expresses  the  confident  assurance  of 
the  triumph  of  his  cause  notwithstanding  all  opposition  and  unbe- 
lief. The  pera  ravra,  after  this  (ver.  1),  however,  cannot  be  taken 
strictly  in  its  chronological  meaning,  but  must  be  understood  gener- 
ally somewhat  in  the  sense  of  moreover  (Schleiermacher  on  Luke,  p. 
169).  The  address  of  the  Lord  to  his  departing  disciples  as  given 
by  Luke,  closely  resembles  that  in  Matthew  (chap,  x.),  except  that 
in  the  latter  it-  is  more  extended  and  complete.  Similar  circum- 
stances assuredly  led  most  naturally  to  similar  ideas,  but  in  the 
exact  agreement  of  the  clauses,  transfers  and  transpositions  are  not 
improbable.  The  mention  of  the  unbelieving  cities,  however,  stands 
in  appropriate  connexion  with  the  context  in  Luke,  while  it  stands 
only  very  loosely  in  its  place  at  Matth.  xi.  20-24.  For,  if  the  Lord 
had  closed  his  preaching  in  Galilee,  and  knew  that  he  should  never 
more  set  foot  within  it,  this  would  give,  as  nothing  else  would,  its 
full  meaning  to  the  reproof  in  which  he  rebukes  the  unbelief  of  those 
who  so  long  had  listened  to  him  and  seen  his  works. 

Ver.  1. — The  word  dvedeige,  appointed,  points  to  a  specific  act  of 
election,  such  as,  according  to  Matth.  x.  1,  seq.,  took  place  in  the 
case  of  the  twelve,  to  a  formal  dvddeigtg  (Luke  i.  80).  The  verb 
dvadeiuwfu  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  "to  appoint,"  with 
the  accessory  idea  of  a  solemn  and  public  setting-forth  of  the  dignity 
bestowed.  (Compare  2  Mace.  ix.  23,  25  ;  x.  11 ;  xiv.  12  ;  3  Esr.  ii. 
3.)  The  disciples  were  moreover  sent  out  two  and  two  (dvd  duo), 
that  they  might  mutually  support  each  other,  and  might,  in  the 
places  Jesus  intended  to  visit,  prepare  men's  minds  beforehand  for 
his  coming. 

Ver.  2. — Luke  here  places  at  the  outset  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus, 
the  same  thought  which  at  Matth.  ix.  37,  38,  precedes  the  choosing 
of  the  twelve  ;  though  certainly  the  connexion  in  Matthew  is  more 
loose,  inasmuch  as  the  words  with  him,  primarily  refer  to  the  sight 
of  the  people  without  leaders  or  teachers.  At  the  foundation  of  the 
expression  Oepca^og,  harvest,  lies  obviously  the  comparison  of  the 
Divine  word  to  seed,  and  mankind  to  the  field.  (Compare  Matth. 
xiii.  4,  seq.)  According  to  this  the  Old  Testament  period  is  to  be 
considered  as  the  time  during  which  the  Divine  Word  had  been  in 
operation,  whose  great  result  was  that  lively  sense  of  the  need  of 
atonement  which  shewed  itself  among  the  people.  This  is  viewed 
in  relation  to  the  past  as  a  harvest,  but  as  compared  with  what  was 
to  follow,  it  appears  as  merely  the  given  possibility  of  a  new  and 
nobler  growth,  whose  harvest  was  to  be  expected  in  the  end  of  the 
day  at  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  his  glory.  The  apostles  and 
all  the  labourers,  in  the  first  instance,  stand  forth  simply  as  wit- 


LUKE  X.  2-6. 

nesses  of  the  harvest ;  but  in  another  respect,  in  so  far,  namely,  as 
they  have  themselves  received  the  quickening  principles  of  the 
Gospel,  they  appear  as  those  who  are  called  to  disseminate  it  more 
widely  abroad,  and  indeed  this  is  referred  to  by  the  admonition 
derjOrjTe  rov  KVQIOV  K.  T.  A.  The  fervent  prayer  of  those  who  have 
themselves  already  been  received  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
who  labour  in  the  spirit  of  it,  is  the  means  of  procuring  its  ever 
wider  extension,  by  the  stirring  up  of  living  labourers  for  it.  The 
very  sending  out  of  the  seventy  was  of  itself  an  answer  to  the  prayer, 
which,  on  the  occasion  of  sending  forth  the  twelve,  Jesus  urged  his 
disciples  to  offer. 

Ver.  3,  4. — According  to  Luke,  the  discourse,  immediately  after 
the  command  to  go  forth,  begins  with  the  mention  of  threatening 
dangers.  Matth.  x.  16  mentions  them  later  in  the  discourse,  where 
see  more  particularly.  This  remark,  respecting  the  relation  of  be- 
lievers to  the  world,  seems  to  be  contradicted  by  what  follows,  JUT) 
(3aord&Te  K.  T.  A.  For,  while  the  allusion  to  the  wolves  seems  to 
awaken  fear  and  anxiety,  the  subsequent  admonition  to  go  forth 
without  the  preparations  suggested  by  human  foresight,  bespeaks 
believing  confidence.  But  this  contrast  is  the  very  thing  here  in- 
tended. "  Without  considering  such  danger,  go  forth  free  from 
care,  everything  shall  be  provided  for  you."  (As  to  particulars, 
compare  my  remarks  on  Matth.  x.  9,  10. — EaXdv-iov  =  n'ns  [Job 
xiv.  17]  in  translating  which  it  is  used  by  the  LXX.,  is  allied  to 
-rrripa,  crumena.)  The  \Lt\8iva  Kara  rrjv  66bv  do-ndoTjade  still  remains 
obscure,  even  though  we  seek  an  explanation  in  the  oriental  prac- 
tice of  saluting  each  other  by  tedious  forms  of  courtesy,  and  so 
causing  detention,  for,  the  injunction — ye  must  not  linger* — agrees 
neither  with  what  goes  before,  nor  what  follows.  It  is  better  to 
understand  doTrd&odai  as  meaning  to  salute,  to  receive,  or  welcome 
as  a  friend,  with  the  secondary  sense  of  seeking  for  favour.  In 
this  way  the  expression  stands  on  the  same  footing  with  those  which 
precede  it,  which  all  denote  preparations  for  the  journey,  measures 
of  human  foresight. 

Ver.  5,  6. — As  to  the  conduct  which  Jesus  exhorts  his  messen- 
gers to  pursue  towards  those  with  whom  they  sojourn,  compare 
Matth.  x.  13.  The  Spirit  seeks  what  is  akin  to  itself,  and  where 
that  is  wanting  finds  no  abode.  The  expression  given  by  Luke,  son 
of  peace,  in  some  respects  conveys  a  meaning  peculiarly  its  own,  in 
others  it  is  a  clearer  and  closer  statement  than  that  of  Matthew, 
who  merely  speaks  of  the  house  as  worthy  or  not  worthy.  Accord- 
ing to  Luke,  those  minds  disposed  to  receive  the  Gospel  must  be 
distinguished  from  those  in  the  same  house  who  were  resolved  to 

*  Compare  the  parallel  passage  2  Kings  iv.  29,  where  Elisha  enjoins  on  Gehazi  the 
greatest  haste,  and  says  ii&wrj  *6  »•»« 


LUKE  X.  5-17.  609 

reject  it.     To  the  former  the  blessing  of  God's  kingdom  is  promised, 
to  the  latter  not. 

Yer.  7. — The  exhortation,  that  in  the  house  where  they  had 
taken  up  their  quarters,  they  should  content  themselves  with  what 
the  occupants  had  to  give  (rd  Trap'  avr&v),  is  connected  in  Luke  so 
closely  with  the  ^i)  iiKrafiaivere.  £!•  olKiag  el$  olniaVj  go  not  from  house 
to  house,  that  the  latter  idea  is  more  completely  modified  by  it,  than 
is  the  case  at  Matth.  x.  11,  where  this  connexion  is  wanting.  It 
seems,  according  to  the  representation  of  Luke,  that  our  Lord  in- 
tended to  warn  them  against  leaving  the  cottages  of  the  poor,  and 
seeking  instead  the  dwellings  of  the  rich.  The  labourer  in  the  field 
of  God,  receives  his  hire  (Matthew  has  rpo<j»j  x.  10),  i.  e.,  his  bodily 
nourishment,  and  the  supply  of  his  necessities.  The  seeking  for 
more  than  this,  cometh  of  evil. 

Yer.  8-11. — In  Luke,  the  cures,  and  the  preaching  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  appear  in  the  light  of  spiritual  rewards  for  bodily 
services.  In  Matthew  the  same  ideas  are  brought  forward  in  an- 
other connexion.  (Compare  Matth.  x.  8.)  As  to  their  conduct 
towards  those  who  resisted  them,  compare  Matth.  x.  14.  ('A.Trofjao- 
aeadai  is  found  only  here.  It  corresponds  to  the  inrivdoaeiv  in  Mat- 
thew.) As  to  the  former  the  nearness  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a 
message  of  joy,  so  it  is  to  these  a  message  of  terror,  implying  for 
the  one  the  possibility,  for  the  other  the  impossibility  of  their  enter- 
ing it. 

Yer.  12-15. — The  woe  which  the  Lord  utters  against  such  an 
unbelieving  city,  is  most  appropriately  followed  by  a  curse  on  the 
places  which  had  been  the  witnesses  of  his  greatest  glory.  The 
words  seem  to  have  been  originally  uttered  in  this  connexion,  viz., 
at  the  close  of  the  labours  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  although  Matthew 
(xi.  20-24)  has  inserted  them  not  unfittingly  into  his  context.  (As 
respects  the  exposition,  see  the  details  in  Matthew,  ut  supra.) 

Ver.  16. — According  to  Luke,  the  address  of  Jesus  to  the  seventy 
concludes  with  the  general  idea,  that  he,  the  Saviour,  recognized 
such  living  union  with  his  children,  that  what  was  done  to  them 
was  done  to  him.  (Compare  on  Matth.  x.  40,  where  the  same 
thought,  but  only  as  conceived  under  a  single  aspect,  is  expressed.) 

Yer.  17. — The  circumstance  that  in  the  following  passage  the 
return  of  the  disciples  is  anticipated,  goes  to  prove  the  correctness 
of  the  opinion  that  it  is  impossible  in  this  section  of  Luke  to  keep 
the  chronological  thread.  The  discourses  of  Jesus  connected 
with  this  return,  form  a  well  compacted  whole,  so  that  here  again 
the  account  of  Luke  bears  a  more  original  character  than  that  of 
Matthew.  First  the  evangelist  makes  the  disciples  on  their  return 
express  to  Jesus  their  child-like  joy  for  the  deeds  which  in  his  name 
they  had  been  able  to  perform.  (The  casting  out  devils  is  one  of 

VOL.  I.— 39 


610  LUKE  X.  17, 18. 

the  many  miracles  which  they  did.  This  might  appear  to  them  of 
special  importance,  as  it  presupposed  a  control  over  the  mighty 
kingdom  of  evil.)  Most  deeply  is  this  representation  drawn  from 
the  life.  A  secret  joy  seizes  a  man  when  he  finds  that  he  acts  with 
an  energy  more  than  human,  for  example,  that  through  him  the 
spiritually  dead  are  awakened.  In  this  joy  there  is  the  implied 
testimony  that  man  is  called  to  act  with  power  from  on  high,  but 
there  lies  in  it  also  a  temptation  so  dangerous,  that  the  Saviour, 
though  he  acknowledges  the  joy  as  right  and  well-founded,  yet 
warns  them  at  the  same  time  against  giving  themselves  up  to  it 
without  watchfulness,  and  exhorts  them  to  keep  fully  in  view  the 
foundation  of  that  real  joy  which  can  never  lead  astray. 

Ver.  18. — Singularly  remarkable  is  the  declaration  of  the  Lord, 
which,  in  Luke,  follows  immediately  after  the  expression  of  joy  on 
the  part  of  the  disciples.  Inasmuch  as  he  makes  a  transition  from 
the  8at\Lovia  to  Satan  himself,  without  any  occasion  for  it,  and  in  the 
circle  of  his  immediate  disciples,  we  must  say  that  here  is  an  addi- 
tional passage  (compare  on  Matth.  xiii.  39)  leading  us  to  infer  that 
the  Saviour  himself  teaches  the  existence  of  a  prince  of  darkness, 
and  that  this  doctrine  is  by  no  means  to  be  looked  on  as  a  Jew- 
ish superstition.  Here  would  have  been  the  place,  even  on  the  sup- 
position of  Christ's  accommodating  himself  to  the  views  of  the  multi- 
tude, in  which  to  point  out  the  unfounded  and  ruinous  nature  of  such 
a  belief,  and  to  advise  (in  accordance  with  the  views  of  some)  that 
the  use  of  the  idea  by  way  of  accommodation,  be  restricted  to  cases 
of  necessity.  But  in  the  expression  itself,  "  I  beheld  Satan,"  etc., 
the  "  beheld"  (tfewpeZv)  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  understood  of  bodily 
sight,  but  of  spiritual  contemplation,  for  the  object  seen  was  itself 
spiritual.  The  nature  of  spiritual  vision,  however,  involves  the  con- 
ception of  the  future  as  present.  We  may,  in  explanation,  compare 
the  parallel  passage,  John  viii.  56,  where  Jesus  says  of  Abraham, 
"he  saw  my  day"  (dde  r^v  rj/iepav  r^v  <£p/v).  As  here  in  prophetic 
vision  Messiah  and  the  whole  Messianic  future  is  represented  as 
present  in  spirit  to  Abraham,  so  the  Saviour  in  this  passage  says 
that  he  beheld  as  a  present  event  the  annihilation  of  the  dominion 
of  evil.  The  preterite  tense  iQeupow,  I  was  beholding,  therefore, 
must  be  referred  not  merely  to  the  period  during  which  the  seventy 
were  absent,  but  to  past  time  in  general,  so  that  the  meaning  would 
be — for  a  long  time  have  I  seen  in  spirit  the  power  of  evil  as  van- 
quished. For,  the  cures  wrought  by  the  disciples,  are  obviously  to 
be  considered  not  as  the  causes,  but  as  the  effects  of  the  overthrow. 
Because  the  power  of  evil  was  broken  by  the  Saviour's  appearance 
in  the  midst  of  mankind,  and  through  him  the  energies  of  a  higher 
life  were  imparted  to  the  disciples,  therefore  could  they  do  such  deeds. 
It  was  impossible,  however,  for  the  deeds  of  the  disciples  to  effect  that 


LUKE  X.  18, 19.  611 

which,  was  the  object  of  Christ's  entire  mission  and  ministry.  But 
being  the  results  of  the  overthrow  of  evil,  their  actions  were  at  the 
same  time  the  evidences  of  that  great  victory,  and  thus  far  was  their 
joy  well-grounded,  and  the  transition  made  by  Christ  from  their 
deeds  to  the  overthrow  of  Satan  himself,  sufficiently  accounted  for. 
The  figurative  expression,  "  fall  from  heaven"  (m-nrsiv  in  rov  ovpavov), 
is  probably  chosen  after  the  remarkable  passage,  Is.  xiv.  12,  in  which 
the  king  of  Babylon  (as  the  type  of  the  prince  of  darkness)  is  repre- 
sented as  by  proud  effort  scaling  the  heavens,  that  he  might  set  his 
throne  above  the  stars  of  God,  but  cast  headlong  from  his  self- 
chosen  exaltation.  The  LXX.  translate  it  TT&S  l^eneaev  KK  rov  ovoavov 
6  £w<70dpof.  (Compare  as  to  this  the  expositors  of  Isaiah.)  The 
addition  &<;  darpan^v,  as  lightning,  depicts  (as  at  Zech.  ix.  14),  the 
swiftness  of  the  fall.  The  whole  passage  consequently  expresses  the 
same  thought  as  in  John  xii.  31,  6  dpx^v  rov  KOG^OV  rovrov  eicft^drjoe- 
rai  E%(JJ,  the  prince  of  this  ivorld  shall  be  cast  out  (according  to 
another  reading  it  is  even  itdru  (3Xrjd^osrat,  to  which  consequently 
i)^Qr\vat,  of  the  Saviour  forms  an  appropriate  contrast),  namely  this, 
that  in  Christ  and  with  Christ,  evil  is  seen  as  overcome,  and  good  is 
displayed  in  all  its  glory.  We  may  compare  also  on  this  point  the 
peculiar  representation  given  in  the  Revelation  of  John,  where, 
however,  the  casting  out  of  Satan  (xii.  7,  seq.)  is  distinguished  from 
the  complete  chaining  up  of  his  power  (xx.  2,  seq). 

Ver.  19. — This  verse  mentions  exemption  •from  all  liability  to 
personal  injury,  as  a  new  result  of  the  victory  thus  won  by  truth — 
of  that  victory  which  our  Lord,  in  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  beheld  as 
actually  wrought  out.  As  the  Saviour's  power  sets  the  captive  free, 
so  does  it  preserve  his  people  from  the  assaults  of  hostile  force  dur- 
ing their  subsequent  progress.  Serpents  and  scorpions  ("O^e^  KOI 
oicopmot)  are  mentioned,  as  being  amongst  animals  the  representar 
tives  of  the  kingdom  of  evil,  as  in  them  poison  is  collected,  and 
inflicts,  on  contact,  physical  injury.  (Compare  Ps.  xci.  13.)  The 
expression  originates  in  that  profound  view  of  natural  life  pervading 
all  Scripture  (compare  further  on  Rom.  viii.  19,  seq.)  according  to 
which  the  disorders  of  sin  in  the  spiritual  world  express  themselves 
also  in  the  physical.  What  follows  KOL  em  naoav  dvvafav  (tos  orpa- 
ria)  rov  cxdpov,  fills  up  the  first  expression,  and  extends  it  so  as  to 
comprehend  every  form  of  assault  from  the  world  of  evil.  The 
mightier  power  of  Jesus  gives  security  against  the  influence  of  these 
in  every  shape.  Such  passages  as  Mark  xvi.  17,  18  ;  Acts  xxviii. 
5  ;  shew  that  here  we  are  by  no  means  to  exclude  all  reference  to 
what  is  external.  But  this  reference  stands  connected  in  general 
with  the  continuance  of  the  Charismata  as  outward  manifestations 
of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  After  these  Charismata  have  ceased,  the 
spiritual  application  of  the  words  alone  becomes  prominent. 


612  LUKE  X.  19-22. 

(JA.diKdv  stands  as  =  /SAaTrrav,  as  at  Rev.  vii.  2,  3.     Compare  Mark 
xvi.  18.) 

Ver.  20. — To  these  words,  which  acknowledge  as  well-founded 
the  triumphant  declarations  of  the  disciples  (ver.  17),  there  is  now 
subjoined  a  warning.      In  their  connexion,  therefore   the  words, 
"  rejoice  not,"  etc.  (pr)  xaipere — ^aipere  <5e),  are  not  to  be  understood 
as  an  absolute  prohibition  of  joy  over  the  power  of  the  Spirit  in 
them,  but  only  as  forbidding  them  to  make  even  this  matter  of 
supreme  and  exclusive  rejoicing.     For,  in  case  the  believer  makes 
the  workings  of  God's  Spirit  through  himself  his  sole,  or  even  lead- 
ing object  of  attention  and  joy,  he  is  in  danger  of  withdrawing  his 
view  from  the  source  of  this  higher  life,  and  no  sooner  does  he  cease 
to  draw  from  that  fountain,  than  life  dries  up,  and  self-indulgence, 
vanity,  pride,  spring  up  in  his  soul.     Hence,  the  Saviour  here  brings 
forward  as  the  true  and  abiding  object  of  a  Christian's  regard  and 
joy,  the  fact  that  their  names  are  written  in  heaven  (on  ra  dvopara 
vp&v  iypdfyri  iv  rolg  ovpavolcf).     At  the  foundation  of  this  language 
lies  the  figure  of  the  book  of  life,  in  which  the  names  of  believers  are 
inscribed,  a  figure  already  often  used  in  the  Old  Testament  (Exod. 
xxxii.  32  ;  Ps.  Ixix.  28  ;  cxxxix.  16).     The  inscribing  is  conceived 
of  as  the  act  of  God  (iypd^rj  VTTO  rov  9eoi5),  so  that  the  election  of 
grace  by  which  the  saints  are  chosen,  and  which  they  have  them- 
selves certainly  to  make  sure  (2  Pet.  i.  10),  is  thereby  denoted. 
Hence,  in  contrast  \Mith  human  agency  authoritatively  gifted  with 
higher  powers,  there  is  placed  a  Divine  agency  acting  upon  man  ;  the 
former  is  a  very  doubtful  object  of  joy,  for  by  means  of  it  self-pleas- 
ing and  vanity  easily  insinuate  themselves,  inasmuch  as  the  will  is 
seldom  delivered  from  self.    Divine  grace  on  the  other  hand,  and  its 
manifestation,  the  calling  of  man,  is  clearly  the  object  of  holiest 
joy,   for   God's   will  is   as  pure   as  it  is  unchangeable,    and   in 
his  election  of  grace  therefore,  of  which  he  can  never  repent  (Rom. 
xi.  29),  lies  the  ground  of  all  salvation  and  all  blessedness  to  man- 
kind.    Even  therefore,  if  he  cannot  perform  any  great  spiritual 
deeds  (2  Cor.  xii.  9),  this  remains  as  the  joy  of  the  believer,  which, 
as  being  personally  his  own,  he  can  never  be  deprived  of,  that  he 
lets  his  soul  satisfy  itself  in  the  grace  of  God. 

Ver.  21,  22. — With  singular  appropriateness  there  is  here  added 
this  expression  of  holy  joy  on  the  part  of  our  Lord,  which  stands  in 
strong  contrast  with  the  joy  of  sense  (ver.  17)  as  felt  by  the  disciples. 
The  latter  exulted  over  the  external  splendour  of  the  work  ;  the 
Saviour  drew  his  delight  from  its  hidden  glory,  from  this,  namely, 
that  God's  true  wisdom  was  revealed  by  the  Father,  not  to  the 
prudent  and  wise  ones  of  the  world,  but  to  the  vijmoi,  babes /  in 
the  new  creation,  blossoming  unnoticed  in  the  hidden  circle  of  his 
friends,  he  had  his  quiet  and  humble  joy.  Rightly,  then,  did  the 


LUKE  X.  22-25.  613 

Divine  consciousness  repose  in  this  lowliness  and  self-humiliation. 
Conscious  of  his  dignity  as  God,  he  recognized  himself  as  at  once 
the  organ  and  the  object  of  every  true  revelation  of  God.  (For  the 
more  minute  details  compare  on  Matth.  xi.  25-27,  where  the  same 
words  occur,  but  in  a  more  loose  connexion.) 

Ver.  23,  24. — These  verses  were  already  explained  more  in 
detail  at  Matth.  xiii.  16,  17,  where  they  stand  in  a  wholly  different 
connexion.  Here,  the  leading  idea  of  the  two  verses,  that  super- 
abundant grace  had  been  manifested  towards  them  (the  disciples), 
stands  intimately  connected  with  the  preceding,  to  wit,  that  they 
were  the  chosen  ones  to  whom  the  Lord  revealed  more  than  to  the 
saints  of  the  Old  Testament.  Only,  in  this  connexion  the  orpafals 
Trpbg  rovg  jj,adrj~dg  /car'  idiav  elrre,  turning  to  his  disciples  he  said  apart, 
occasions  some  obscurity.  The  oTpaQeig  may  easily  be  understood  as 
referring  back  to  ver.  21,  where  the  Saviour  in  his  discourse  ad- 
dresses himself  to  God,  but  the  /car'  Idiav,  apart,  remains  a  difficulty, 
inasmuch  as  the  whole  preceding  discourse  had  already  been  spoken 
in  the  most  private  circle  of  his  disciples.  As  the  common  text, 
however,  has  the  words  "  he  turned  and  said  to  his  disciples"  before 
ver.  22,  the  «ar'  Idiav  may  best  admit  of  being  explained  thus. 
While  the  discourse  was  going  on,  some  hearers  had  gathered  around 
him  (as  the  following  25th  verse  seq.,  immediately  shews);  on  their 
account  Jesus  spake  the  last  words  in  a  low  tone  to  those  more 
immediately  about  him,  uttering  the  rest  aloud  in  the  hearing  of 
all.  In  this  case,  the  reading  of  the  common  text  (ver.  22)  would 
be  the  correct  one,  and  this  view  should  be  at  once  adopted  for  this 
further  reason,  that  the  omission  of  the  clause  may  easily  be  ex- 
plained from  the  parallel  words  of  the  following  verse,  but  the 
addition  less  easily.  Whether,  however,  the  words  are  found  here 
or  in  Matthew  in  their  original  connexion,  or  whether  the  Saviour, 
as  in  the  case  of  such  a  declaration  may  well  be  conceived,  more 
than  once  gave  utterance  to  them,  it  is  in  this  case  hard  to  decide. 


§  4.  PAEABLE  OF  THE  TENDER-HEARTED  SAMARITAN. 

i( 

(Luke  x.  25-37.) 

A  lawyer  comes  up  to  Jesus  on  the  road,  in  order  to  hold  con- 
versation with  the  celebrated  prophet.  His  purpose  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  strictly  bad  ;  it  was  rather  curiosity  which  led  him 
to  try  how  Jesus  would  express  himself.  The  Saviour's  way  of 
dealing  with  him,  does  not  permit  us  to  suppose  that  he  was  a  Sad- 
ducee  who  put  the  question,  one  who  himself  believed  in  no  eternal 
life,  and  who  was  now  only  asking  in  irony  after  the  way  to  Utopia. 


614  LUKE  X.  25-27. 

He  seems  rather  to  have  held  the  views  common  among  the  Phari- 
sees, and  only  to  have  been  desirous  of  discovering  what  more  or 
better  knowledge  than  his  own,  Jesus  possessed.  The  tuTTeipd&iv, 
trying,  therefore,  here  has  no  connexion  with  the  laying  of  snares  for 
Christ,  to  make  him  politically  suspected — an  attempt  which, 
according  to  the  gospel  history,  the  Pharisees  frequently  permitted 
themselves  to  make  (compare  Matth.  xxii.  15,  seq).  This  narrative 
rather  is  parallel  to  Matth.  xxii.  35,  seq.  An  enquiry  respecting 
eternal  life  was  not  suited  to  a  design  that  was  simply  wicked. 
With  admirable  wisdom  does  our  Lord  on  the  present  occasion  treat 
this  blind  lawyer.  Entrammelled  in  his  Rabbinical  narrowness  and 
formalism,  he  asks  some  outward  rule  by  which  to  set  bounds  to 
the  duties  of  love,  and  secure  exemption  from  its  universal  ex- 
ercise. Instead  of  giving  him  such  a  wished-for  rule,  the  Saviour 
relates  a  narrative,  in  which  nothing  whatever  is  said  of  the 
object  of  love — the  immediate  object  of  the  lawyer's  question 
— but  of  those  who  exercise  it.  Priest  and  Levite,  members  of 
the  same  order  with  the  enquirer,  and  persons  on  whom  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  was  especially  incumbent,  pass  heartlessly  by, 
reckoning  that  the  sufferer  might  probably  be  no  neighbour.  The 
Samaritan,  whom  they  deemed  a  heretic,  exercised  the  law  of  love.* 
In  every  point  from  which  it  can  be  viewed,  reproving,  rebuking, 
demanding  repentance,  this  parable  must  have  arrested  the  ques- 
tioner. He  must  have  felt  that  not  merely  was  his  question  false, 
but  the  whole  state  of  mind  from  which  it  could  have  proceeded. 
To  the  man  who  was  asking  after  a  law  for  the  exercise  of  love,  it 
must  have  become  obvious  that  he  himself  neither  possessed  nor 
knew  it,  inasmuch  as  its  single  law  is  this,  that  it  is  a  law  to  itself. 
Love  loves,  and  asks  not  when,  how,  where ;  it  is  the  primordial,  inner- 
most life,  which  ignores  the  whole  world  of  reflections  and  pruden- 
tial rules,  and  blesses  even  its  enemy.  Into  this  world  of  pure  love 
which  the  heart  of  Jesus  contained  (for  whosoever  exercises  it  has  it 
only  through  him),  he  opens  a  glimpse  for  the  benefit  of  the  lawyer 
hardened  in  his  legal  subtleties,  and  by  this  means  alone  could  he 
be  helped  out  of  his  heartless  state.  Thus  Jesus  exercised  towards 
even  him  that  very  love,  of  which  he  was  teaching  him  the  know- 
ledge ;  he  blessed  the  man  who  was  trying  him. 

Yer.  25-27. — No^/cof  and  vonodiddoKaXo^^  were  terms  applied  to 
that  tribe  of  scribes  (ypa^arei^  =  Q'ne'o)  who  occupied  themselves 
with  the  (casuistical)  interpretation  of  the  law.  Luke  employs  for 
the  most  part  the  term  vo(iin6^  as  more  intelligible  to  his  readers 
(Luke  vii.  30  ;  xi.  45,  46,  52  ;  xiv.  3),  while  the  Hebraizing  Mat- 

*  According  to  the  view  which  refers  this  Gospel  especially  to  the  heathen,  this  put- 
ting forward  of  one  not  a  Jew  as  the  model  of  pure  love,  possessed  something  peculiarly 
attractive. 


LUKE  X.  25-27.  615 


thew  uses  ypapna-elg  =  a^Bio.  It  is  the  more  generic  term,  while 
Qapiaaloi  denotes  a  particular  party  among  the  vopiicoi.  A  Sadducee 
might  also  be  a  VOJUKOS.  (Compare  on  Matth.  xxii.  35.)  The 
question  as  to  eternal  life,  being  the  final  object  of  all  theological 
enquiry,  is  put  forward  by  the  lawyer,  under  the  conviction  that, 
in  replying  to  it,  Jesus  must  bring  out  whatever  was  peculiar  in  his 
opinions.  (The  formula  icXrjpovofieiv  ^wr/v  al&viov,  or  (3aaiAeiav  rov 
Qeov  [1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10;  xv.  50]  has  without  doubt,  its  foundation  in 
the  comparison  of  the  land  of  Canaan  as  a  sensible  type  of  eternity, 
and  of  rest  in  it,  with  eternal  life.  The  expression  /e/lT/povojiteZv  rfjv 
yfjv  at  Matth.  v.  5,  refers  to  this.)  The  Saviour,  however,  refers 
him  to  the  old  well-known  word  of  God,  saying,  as  it  were,  what 
thou  askest  has  lain  from  of  old  expressed  in  the  revealed  word  ; 
take  it  thence  for  yourself.  The  lawyer  now  brings  forward  most 
correctly  the  passages  of  Deut.  vi.  5,  in  connexion  with.  Numb.  xix. 
18  (which  passages  are  in  a  similar  way  conjoined  by  another  law- 
yer at  Mark  xii.  33),  hence  it  only  remained  for  him  to  translate 
into  living  act  the  contents  of  these  deep  words,  which,  rightly 
understood,  involve  the  whole  New  Testament.  That  this  had  not 
as  yet  been  done  by  him,  the  course*  of  the  conversation  shews. 
Further,  a  remarkable  feature  in  the  citations  of  this  passage,  both 
here  and  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels,  is  their  deviation  alike  from  the 
Hebrew  text  and  from  the  LXX.  In  Hebrew  there  stand  the  ex- 
pressions as?,  tjs3,  TN».  The  LXX.  translate  these,  didvoia,  TJ>V%TJ} 
dvvanig.  In  the  quotations  of  the  evangelists,  however,  the  words 
run  thus  : 


Luke  x.  27.  Kapdia,  ipv%ri,  lay?*;,  didvoia. 

Mark  xii.  30.  napdia,  i/w%?7,  didvoia,  lo%v<;. 

Mark  xii.  33.  aap6ia}  ovveoig,  i/)V%7?J 

Matth.  xxii.  37.  Kapdia,  V^A^j  dtdvoia. 


This  constant  .variation  of  the  Gospel  quotations  from  the 
LXX.  in  the  rendering  of  aaV  and  ifctt  leads  almost  to  the  conjecture 
that  the  evangelists  either  followed  another  reading,  or  that  this 
version  of  it  had  been  taken  by  one  of  them  from  another.  For,  it 
is  inconceivable  that  this  deviation  should  have  taken  the  same  form 
in  the  three  evangelists,  if  they  had  written  independently  of  each 
other.  To  me  it  seems  most  probable,  that  in  this  instance  the 
common  agreement  originated  with  Luke,  and  passed  over  from  him 
to  Mark  and  the  Greek  Matthew.  (As  to  the  meaning  of  the 
synonyms  in  the  passage,  compare  my  Program  on  Trichotomy  in 
the  Opusc.  Theol.  p.  143,  seq.,  and  on  Matth.  xxii.  37.)  The 
exalted  idea,  however,  of  loving  God  with  all  our  powers,  and  loving 
him  also  wholly  with  them  all,  embraces  at  once  the  whole,  both  of 


616  LUKE  X.  25-33. 

religion  and  morality.*  For,  the  addition  "  and  thy  neighbour  as 
thyself,"  is  at  bottom  only  an  unfolding  of  the  contents  of  the  first 
commandment,  as  Matth.  xxii.  37,  seq.,  shews.  In  love  to  God, 
which,  on  the  part  of  the  creature,  can  only  take  the  form  of  recep- 
tive love,  there  lies  the  love  of  his  will,  and  consequently  the  implied 
love  of  one's  neighbour.  To  draw,  however,  from  the  command  thus 
to  love  God,  the  inference,  that  man  must  therefore  be  able  to  do  it 
in  his  own  strength,  would  be  wholly  out  of  place.  Since  only  that 
which  is  Divine  knoweth  God  (compare  on  Matth.  xi.  27),  so  only 
that  which  is  Divine  can  love  God  ;  and  when  God  commands  us 
therefore  to  love  God,  it  involves  for  the  creature  an  injunction  to 
receive  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  whom  alone  he  can  be  loved.  This 
Spirit,  however,  the  New  Testament  imparts,  and  consequently 
this  command  of  the  Old  Testament  (as  indeed  the  whole  law)  for 
its  fulfilment,  presupposes  the  Gospel.  This  same  Spirit,  who 
teaches  us  to  love  God,  wholly  and  entirely  with  all  our  faculties, 
alone  enables  us  also  rightly  to  love  our  neighbour.  As  pure  love 
to  God  loves  God  more  than  it  does  self  apart  from  God,  so  it  also 
loves  God  more  than  our  neighbour  apart  from  God ;  but  self  and 
our  brother  being  looked  at  as  in  God,  and  God  in  them,  true  self- 
love  and  genuine  brotherly  love  are  then  at  one  with  the  love  of 
God.  Hence  does  the  Lord  say  that  the  second  commandment  is 
like  unto  the  first  (Matth.  xxii.  39),  for  this  reason,  that  it  is  the  same 
thing  with  it.  Love  to  one's  neighbour,  if  it  be  genuine  love,  that 
is,  if  the  creature  be  loved  not  merely  as  a  creature  (for  in  that  lies 
the  distinctive  character  of  natural  love),  is  nothing  less  than  love 
to  God.  This  is  also  shewn  by  the  following  parable. 

Ver.  28,  29. — The  answer  of  the  lawyer  was  in  itself  satisfactory 
to  the  Saviour,  but  he  directly  urged  him  to  follow  out  the  com- 
mand into  action,  remarking  that  life  lay  in  the  practical  fulfilling 
of  it.  But  it  was  precisely  this  that  brought  to  light  his  inward 
perverseness  ;  his  knowledge  wanted  the  will  which  was  inclined  to 
carry  it  out  into  life,  and  this  want  of  moral  power  again  obscured 
his  discernment.  He  asks,  feeling  himself  struck — who  then  was 
his  neighbour  ?  a  question  which  in  his  own  mind  he  would  have 
been  able  himself  to  answer,  if  he  had  sought  to  exercise  perfect 
love.  (Ai/cat6w  has  no  peculiar  meaning  here  ;  it  merely  refers, 
through  the  word  t-avrov,  to  the  person  wishing  to  justify  himself.) 
Because  of  his  want  of  experience,  Jesus  transfers  him  into  the 
midst  of  the  realities  of  life,  and  makes  him  behold  love  actually 
loving.  (The  term  vTroXafj.j3dveiv  =  d-nonQiveadai.,  excipere,  is  in  the 
New  Testament  found  only  here.  It  occurs  frequently  in  the  LXX.; 
Job  ii.  4  ;  iv.  1.) 

*  As  to  this  and  the  following  thoughts,  compare  the  fuller  discussion  on  the  passage 
Matth.  xxii.  37,  seq. 


LUKE  X.  30-38.  617 

Ver.  30-33. — The  traveller  *  whom  the  robbers  assaulted  is  per- 
haps to  be  conceived  of  as  a  Jew  ;  for  in  that  case  it  would  on  the 
one  hand  be  more  striking  that  the  priest  and  Levite  refused  him 
their  help,  and  on  the  other  hand  that  the  Samaritan  gave  him 
assistance  when  he  might  so  easily  have  availed  himself  of  a 
sophistical  excuse.  (JAvri7rapep%eo6ai  is  not  different  from  irapep- 
Xeodai.  It  is  found  in  the  New  Testament  only  here.  'Lvynvpia  also 
occurs  only  here  in  the  New  Testament.  It  denotes  an  accident. 
Among  profane  writers  also  this  form  of  the  word  rarely  occurs ; 
avyKvprjoig  is  more  usual.) 

Ver.  34,  35. — Most  carefully  is  the  compassionate  treatment 
which  the  despised  Samaritan  bestows  on  the  suffering  stranger, 
delineated.  From  the  impulse  of  love  he  does  even  more  than 
was  incumbent.  (Wine  and  oil,  well-known  means  of  cure  in  the 
East.  The  navdoxeiov  is  the  Caravanserai  of  the  nearest  place,  that 
at  Jericho,  perhaps,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which  Jesus  might 
then  be  staying.)  It  is  a  fine  trait,  that  he  cares  also  for  the 
subsequent  wants  of  the  sick  man,  and  promises  to  repay  the  outlay. 

Ver.  36,  37. — The  enquiry  had  now  reversed  its  character.  The 
lawyer  asked,  ver.  29,  who  was  the  neighbour  to  whom  support 
should  be  given.  Jesus  enquires  who  was  the  neighbour — was  it 
the  man  who  exercised  or  who  refused  to  exercise  love  ?  Even  here, 
however,  lay  the  great  doctrine,  that  love  is  not  determined  by  its 
object,  but  has  inherently  in  itself  its  own  standard.  Pure  love 
loves  even  an  enemy,  as  here  the  Samaritan  does  the  sufferer  who  is 
a  stranger,  and  one  who  from  difference  of  creed  might  have  ap- 
peared hostile.  The  acknowledgment,  therefore,  that  true  love 
dwelt  in  him,  involved  an  answer  to  the  question,  and  thus  it  only 
remained  to  impress  upon  his  mind  the  admonition  -noiei  6juot6)f, 
do  likewise.  It  was  an  obvious  suggestion  to  trace  in  the  compas- 
sionate conduct  of  the  Samaritan  a  figurative  representation  of  the 
Saviour's  work.  The  wounds  of  the  sick  (Is.  i.  6),  which  they  who 
sat  on  Moses'  seat  left  undressed,  he  whom  they  reviled  as  a  Sama- 
ritan (John  viii.  48)  bound  up  with  oil  and  wine. 


§  5.  MARY  AND  MARTHA. 

(Luke  x.  38-42.) 

The  following  little  narrative  presents  to  us  Jesus  in  Bethany, 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem  (John  xi.  1).  That  Martha  and 
Mary  are  to  be  sought  for  nowhere  else  than  in  Bethany,  is  certain 
from  Gospel  history ;  in  this  passage  Martha  is  described  as  pos- 
sessing a  house  of  her  own  in  the  village.  Whether  she  was  a 


618  LUKE  X.  38-40. 

widow,  or  lived  unmarried  with  her  sister  and  Lazarus  cannot  be 
determined.  [Her  sister  Mary  appears  from  John  xii.  1,  comp.  with 
Matth.  xxvi.  6 ;  Mark  xiv.  3,  to  have  been  married  to  Simon,  and 
from  John  xii.  2 — where  Lazarus  is  among  the  invited  guests — to 
have  had  a  separate  household.]  The  evangelists  are  remarkably 
sparing  in  their  historic  notices  of  the  persons  mentioned  by  them. 
They  confine  themselves  to  what  is  barely  necessary,  and  devote 
themselves  rather  to  the  delineation  of  their  spiritual  life.  Hence 
the  account  of  the  two  sisters  here  given,  marks  them,  though  in 
few  touches,  so  strikingly  and  clearly,  that  they  are  often  chosen  as 
exemplars  of  the  peculiarities  of  two  distinct  religious  tendencies. 
We  find  in  Martha  the  type  of  a  life  busily  devoted  to  externals  ; 
in  Mary,  the  type  of  quiet  devotion  to  religion  as  the  one  thing 
needful.  To  a  certain  extent  both  elements  should  be  combined  in 
each  believer,  but  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  there  are  different 
vocations,  and  many  are  better  fitted  for  busy  outward  labour  than  a 
life  of  contemplation,  although  the  most  active  must  in  the  depths  of 
his  soul  be  devoted  to  the  Lord,  and  the  man  of  contemplation 
must  consecrate  his  energies  to  the  advancement  of  God's  king- 
dom. Hence,  even  the  Saviour's  rebuke  to  Martha  (ver.  41)  is  no 
absolute  censure,  and  is  rather  occasioned  by  her  own  antecedent 
remark  (which  shews  that  she  had  mistaken  her  own  position  as  well 
as  Mary's)  than  called  forth  by  her  conduct  itself.  Martha  serves,  as 
it  were,  only  as  a  foil  to  the  figure  of  Mary,  in  whom  appears  a  mind 
wholly  and  undividedly  given  up  to  Divine  influence.  She  is  another 
example  of  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  command  "  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,"  (x.  27).  The  Samaritan 
practised  it  actively,  Mary  passively. 

Ver.  38-40. — Probably  Jesus  had  enjoyed  opportunities  of  be- 
coming acquainted  with  the  family  at  Bethany  in  his  former  yearly 
journeys  to  the  festivals.  Mary  seats  herself  confidingly  at  his  feet 
to  listen  to  the  words  of  her  Lord  ;  Martha  busies  herself  to  pro- 
vide the  best  possible  outward  entertainment  for  the  beloved  guest. 
(We  are  to  view  the  sitting  at  the  feet  (TrapanaQi^eiv  -rrapd  rovg  nodag] 
as  denoting  merely  Mary's  staying  beside  Jesus,  and  certainly  in  an 
attitude  fitted  to  catch  his  instructive  and  life-awakening  words.) 
Martha  was  zealous  meanwhile  about  externals,  which  certainly 
were  necessary  in  part,  but  with  self-gratification  she  gave  herself 
up  entirely  to  them.  Tlepiondodai,  distrahi,  in  the  New  Testament 
occurs  only  here,  in  the  Old  Testament  frequently  ;  also  the  sub- 
stantive TTEpioTraafj.6g  =  i;w,  Eccles.  i.  13  ;  ii.  23,  26.  (j&tojcov/a,  ser- 
vice, includes  here  all  domestic  services  in  which  Martha  lost  herself 
with  needless  bustle.)  From  this  satisfaction  in  her  own  occupa- 
tions arose  the  reproving  speech  directed  against  her  sister ;  perhaps 
conscience  was  aroused,  and  testified  that  Mary  had  more  of  Jesus 


LUKE  X.  38-42.  619 

than  she.  But  as  her  craving  for  heavenly  enjoyments  was  not 
sufficiently  strong  and  pure,  she  suffered  herself  to  be  fettered  by 
external  activities,  which  in  reality  were  more  agreeable  to  her,  and 
out  of  this  state  of  mind  arose  her  speech.  Jealous  of  Mary,  she 
wished  her  to  be  as  she  herself  was.  (The  verb  owavTiXappdvfaQai, 
to  support,  to  help,  occurs  again  only  at  Bom.  viii.  26.) 

Ver.  41,  42. — The  address  of  Jesus  to  Martha  refers  less  to 
household  activity  in  itself  (for  that  must  be  cared  for)  than  to  the 
state  of  mind  in  which  she  went  about  it,  and  the  comparison  she 
instituted  in  this  respect  between  herself  and  Mary.  He  rebukes 
first  the  f^epifivav,  being  careful,  and  rvpj3d&iv,  being  troubled  (the 
word  occurs  only  here  in  the  New  Testament,  it  corresponds  to  the 
Latin  turbare),  that  is,  her  restless  spirit  of  action,  as  moved  by  the 
impulses  of  creature-affection  ;  and  he  next  contrasted  the  many 
things  with  the  one  thing,  along  with  the  iptimation  that  for  the 
sake  of  the  former  she  was  losing  the  latter,  while  yet  this  latter, 
not  the  former  (compare  on  Matth.  iii.  14,  15),  was  of  essential 
necessity*  (%peia).  It  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Saviour's 
discourses,  thai  they  often  in  few  words  say  all  that  is  necessary  to 
bring  everlasting  truth,  in  some  special  view  of  it,  home  to  all  times 
and  circumstances.  Standing  at  the  very  heart  and  centre  of  the 
spiritual  world,  he  without  violence  entwined  the  minutest  and  least 
important  circumstances  of  the  present  with  the  loftiest  eternal 
verities.  In  the  efforts  of  the  two  sisters  the  Lord  brings  the 
nothingness  of  all  love  and  care  for  the  creature,  into  close  com- 
parison with  care  for  what  is  everlasting.  The  one  thing  must  so 
be  laid  hold  of  by  the  soul,  that  no  striving  after  anything  else  may 
similarly  rouse  it ;  and  having  begun  with  one  thing  it  will  be  able 
to  deal  not  merely  with  many  things,  but  with  all  things  else — not 
in  such  a  way,  however,  that  these  shall  have  the  ascendancy  and 
take  captive  the  mind's  life,  but  that  it  shall  itself  bear  sway  and 
bring  every  act  into  harmony  with  the  highest  end  of  life.  This 
pure  and  holy  effort  after  the  one  and  the  Eternal  portion,  had 
Mary  chosen.  The  expressions  pepi?,  part,  allotment,  and  M-eXst-dro, 
chose,  mutually  determine  each  other's  meaning.  The  former  points 
to  the  election  of  grace,  the  latter  to  man's  free  determination  to 
embrace  it.  By  the  combination  of  the  two  (2  Pet.  i.  10)  spiritual 
life  is  rendered  complete,  inasmuch  as  the  individual  thus  lays  hold 
of  the  gift  as  his  own,  and  in  doing  so  places  it  beyond  the  reach  of 

*  The  clause  kvb^  6e  £3-1  ^peia  is  wanting  in  God.  D.  Other  MSS.  read  6?,<y«v  or 
o/Uywv  rj  ivof.  On  these  readings  J.  D.  Michaelis  founds  his  translation — one  dish  is 
enough  for  us.  Certainly  the  reading  dMyuv  seems  to  be  grounded  on  some  such  idea. 
The  common  text,  however,  is  sufficiently  established  by  critical  authorities,  and  the 
reference  of  the  passage  to  a  dish  of  food  is  altogether  excluded,  as  well  by  the  6i-  as  also 
by  the  subsequent  expression  <iya6r)  ftepcf. 


620  LUKE  X.  41,  42  ;   XI.  1-8. 

loss.  Without  the  free  decision  of  his  will  to  embrace  it,  a  man 
may  lose  his  calling  (Matth.  xxv.  29).  For  Martha,  the  thought 
thus  expressed  includes  also  this  warning,  to  care  for  the  one  thing 
first,  and  in  that  way  to  make  her  calling  (which  certainly  was  a 
different  one  from  that  of  Mary)  equally  firm  and  imperishable. 


§  6.  DIRECTIONS  KESPECTING  PBAYEB. 

(Luke  xL  1-13.) 

The  indefinite  kv  TOTTOJ  rivi,  in  a  certain  place,  shews  [that  Luke 
is  far  from  having  in  view  a  narrative  of  a  journey,  and  with  this  a 
series  of  events  regularly  succeeding  each  other  in  time  and  place]  ; 
he  may,  therefore,  have  been  often  guided  in  his  arrangement  more 
by  the  connexion  of  the  matter  than  by  local  association. 

Ver.  1-4. — As  to  the  detailed  exposition  of  the  Lord's  prayer 
compare  Matth.  vi.  9-13.  It  only  remains  for  us  to  speak  here 
of  the  particular  form  it  bears  in  the  text  of  Luke,  for  it  is  not 
to  be  doubted  that  the  text  in  this  Gospel  has  been  interpolated 
from  the  more  lengthened  recension  of  Matthew.  First,  in  the 
address,  the  words  r\n&v  6  lv  rotg  ovpavolc;  are  undoubtedly  genuine 
in  Matthew,  but  like  the  entire  petition  yevrjO^ru  TO  dZXrjpd  oov  K.  r. 
A.,  which  is  the  firmly  established  reading  of  Matthew,  they  are  in 
Luke  of  questionable  authority.  The  same  thing  applies  also  to  the 
concluding  words  aAAa  pvaai  ///iaf  K.  r.  A.  It  is  true  that  by  these 
omissions  the  prayer  is  in  no  respect  rendered  specifically  different, 
for  the  yev^^Tw  K.  r.  A.  is  merely  a  further  carrying  out  of  the 
£A0£TO)  oov  j)  0aoiXeia,  in  the  same  way  that  the  dAAa  pvaai  K.  r.  A. 
contains  a  filling  up  of  the  antecedent  idea  JUT)  efaeveyKqg  ^dq  d<; 
Treipaapov.  But  the  beautiful  harmony  which  the  prayer  exhibits  as 
given  by  Matthew  is  wanting  in  the  shorter  recension  of  Luke,  for 
the  first  half  of  it  (compare  on  Matth.  vi.  9),  comprising  only  two 
clauses,  is  disproportionately  curtailed.  The  recension  of  Matthew 
should  therefore  be  considered  as  the  original  form  of  the  prayer,  for 
what  is  peculiar  to  him  cannot  possibly  be  a  mere  amplification 
originating  in  later  traditions  ;  that  of  Luke  on  the  other  hand  as 
an  abbreviated  form,  inasmuch  as  he  deals  in  a  similar  way  with 
several  of  those  passages  which  Matthew  has  included  in  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount.  (Compare  the  beginning  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.) 

Ver.  5-8. — To  the  prayer  thus  given,  there  are  fittingly  sub- 
joined admonitions  as  to  the  use  of  it.  Especially  is  persevering 
earnestness  of  supplication  urgently  enjoined.  In  the  first  verses 
this  is  done  in  the  form  of  a  parable,  in  the  last  (9-13)  by  figurative 


LUKE  XI.  9-13.  621 

expressions.  The  latter  verses  have  already  been  explained  at 
Matth.  vii.  7,  seq. ;  the  -parable  of  the  benighted  traveller  who  by 
continued  entreaty  prevails  with  his  neighbour  and  causes  him  to 
fulfil  his  desire,  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  It  has  no  difficulties  beyond 
the  single  circumstance,  that  as  appears  from  this  comparison,  the 
impure  motives  (the  dvaitieid)  as  well  of  the  suppliant  as  of  him 
who  suffered  himself  to  be  persuaded,  form  the  point  of  comparison 
for  illustrating  the  most  exalted  relations.  (Of  the  same  nature  is 
Luke  xviii.  1,  seq.,  which  passage  also  treats  of  prayer,  and  in  it 
God  is  compared  to  an  unjust  judge.)  But  first  as  respects  the 
importunity  (dvaideia)  of  the  suppliant,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked 
that  he  is  here  pleading  not  for  himself  but  for  his  guest ;  his  press- 
ing importunate  petitions  acquire  thus  a  nobler  motive  ;  he  entreats 
bread  that  he  may  not  be  compelled  to  violate  the  holy  rites  of 
hospitality.  From  the  man  who  yields  to  the  prayer,  we  cannot 
indeed  dissociate  an  unworthy  motive  ;  the  nobler  one  of  love  is  ex- 
pressly excluded,  and  he  grants  what  is  asked,  only  that  he  may 
get  rid  of  the  suppliant — and  yet  this  is  applied  to  God.  Here, 
however,  we  must  have  recourse  to  that  usage  in  regard  to  parables 
(compare  on  Matth.  ix.  16),  which  makes  the  comparison  express 
not  merely  the  positive  objective  truth,  but  modifies  it  to  meet  the 
subjective  position  of  him  for  whose  understanding  and  instruction 
it  is  designed.  Here  the  Saviour  places  himself  on  the  level  of  the 
man  who  knows  from  experience  that  God  often  delays  long  the  ful- 
filment of  prayer,  delineating  him  directly  as  unrighteous  (see  on 
Luke  xviii.  1),  in  doing  which  he  merely  sets  forth  fully  the  impres- 
sion as  felt  in  such  circumstances  by  a  petitioner  weak  in  the  faith, 
and  he  adds  the  requisite  exhortations  according  to  this  impression. 
Thus  do  the  parables  constantly  appear  as  having  proceeded  from 
the  liveliest  conception  of  man's  circumstances,  and  a  truthful  ex- 
pression of  spiritual  relations  adapting  themselves  immediately  to 
our  earthly  condition.  How  far  the  interpretation  of  individual 
traits  in  the  parable  (for  example  here  the  midnight  as  denoting  the 
time  of  deepest  internal  darkness  and  need)  should  be  carried,  must 
certainly  remain  somewhat  uncertain.  In  the  parables  of  Jesus, 
however,  which  proceed  upon  powers  of  conception  so  rich,  it  should 
on  the  whole  be  maintained  as  a  rule  that  no  single  trait  is  lightly 
to  be  overlooked,  unless  in  adhering  to  it,  we  do  obvious  violence  to 
the  similitude  as  a  whole. 


ft- 


•   Of  CAUKXNU   O 


THE  UNWRSTY   « 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


I  ll/tt  Scries  MO 


OF  CWFOWU    « 


3  1205  00947  4451 


